This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
Talking to a guy who does cheap US road trips this morning who said this year what were 50 dollar motels are now 100 dollar motels.
It's the economy, stupid
And Trump's plan to solve the problem is... tariffs, raising prices even further.
Did you see his latest.
John Deere are looking at moving some tractor production to Mexico.
Trump has told them to reconsider or when he is elected President it will be 200% tariffs.
I guess it is good politics though.
To an audience of farmers ? Questionable. (Also economically bananas.)
Note that he's also declaring unchecked power to bypass Congress on tariffs.
It is not just the farmers he is addressing though, it is the campaign as a whole and it got noticed. It has been over social media and on the news in the USA. It will certainly not do him any harm with voters whose jobs are being offshored. A message he is constantly getting over.
So yes, it is good politics in my view.
Also, as I have said before, I think his policies on Tariffs is crazy already. We need less restrictions to trade not more.
Manufacturing jobs being offshored to Mexico has been a theme in the flyover states ever since the NAFTA agreement was signed. It’s had a similar effect in Appalachia to the end of coal mining in Northern England in the ‘70s and ‘80s, with whole communities holllowed out and a feeling that no-one is speaking up for them.
Which is why Trump is telling manufacturers he’ll be putting tarrifs on companies who relocate American jobs to Mexico.
Trump lost more manufacturing jobs than any president since Hoover. Biden is actually bringing them back. To flyover states.
Talking to a guy who does cheap US road trips this morning who said this year what were 50 dollar motels are now 100 dollar motels.
It's the economy, stupid
And Trump's plan to solve the problem is... tariffs, raising prices even further.
Did you see his latest.
John Deere are looking at moving some tractor production to Mexico.
Trump has told them to reconsider or when he is elected President it will be 200% tariffs.
I guess it is good politics though.
To an audience of farmers ? Questionable. (Also economically bananas.)
Note that he's also declaring unchecked power to bypass Congress on tariffs.
It is not just the farmers he is addressing though, it is the campaign as a whole and it got noticed. It has been over social media and on the news in the USA. It will certainly not do him any harm with voters whose jobs are being offshored. A message he is constantly getting over.
So yes, it is good politics in my view.
Also, as I have said before, I think his policies on Tariffs is crazy already. We need less restrictions to trade not more.
Manufacturing jobs being offshored to Mexico has been a theme in the flyover states ever since the NAFTA agreement was signed. It’s had a similar effect in Appalachia to the end of coal mining in Northern England in the ‘70s and ‘80s, with whole communities holllowed out and a feeling that no-one is speaking up for them.
Which is why Trump is telling manufacturers he’ll be putting tarrifs on companies who relocate American jobs to Mexico.
Trump lost more manufacturing jobs than any president since Hoover. Biden is actually bringing them back. To flyover states.
Manufacturing jobs increased under Trump until covid hit. The million jobs lost because of covid have slowly returned.
Jobs were lost for similar reasons to why prices have risen - outside events.
Both would have happened whoever was in government at the time.
Trump is blaming Biden for inflation so he can’t have it both ways . He can therefore own the loss in manufacturing jobs given it was equally an outside event .
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Good post. As usual, you take a rational view, a view which is needed here.
My mother - Guardian-reading, C4 news watching, retired teacher, "don't feel sorry for Major" mother - hasn't heard about the return of the sausage, but is very disappointed about all the clothes nonsense.
I don't think it's the sort of thing that changes anyone's minds by itself, but it's the sort of thing which affects people's perceptions of everything else that happens.
Those dates align perfectly with Sunak calling the election and the end of the election.
Edit technically a week after the election was called and a week after the election.
I can understand why he would want to be out of the public eye during that period.
What's the legality of letting a 16 year old live alone like that? I mean, I'm sure it's fine in practical terms. But what if he were 15 at the time - depending on his birthday he may have been.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
If this site becomes an echo chamber - of right or left or whatever - it will have been diminished. I come here for interesting takes on current affairs from all sides, your deadpan irony included
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
Living a certain kind of lifestyle.
To some people from my youngest daughter's school, having a spare flat in London where the kids can study quietly would be perfectly sensible.
One joke is, apparently, asking a boy in her class how many houses the family owns, at the time. He has to think about which ones have been bought and sold and solemnly enumerates them. Nice kid - his idea of fun is helping other kids with the classwork, when he has finished his own.
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
Are you on holiday Malc? Or is it unseasonably hot north of the border?
On holiday, in the hills outside Malaga, very pleasant and hot
Those dates align perfectly with Sunak calling the election and the end of the election.
Edit technically a week after the election was called and a week after the election.
I can understand why he would want to be out of the public eye during that period.
What's the legality of letting a 16 year old live alone like that? I mean, I'm sure it's fine in practical terms. But what if he were 15 at the time - depending on his birthday he may have been.
Why would he be alone? I would assume at least one family member there with him...
Depends of the 15 year old as well. I related, the other day, the story of a friend's son, who was baby sitting, who dealt with a fire perfectly. You could easily imagine him camping in the woods on his own, just fine.
Glad to see I get substantially more from ALCS than Starmer does
#academicsnoutsinthetrough
I didn't know about PLR / ALCS for about five years after my first book was out. Got almost £500 in the first year in accumulated backpay. Well worth the admin.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
Paella - chicken, seafood or a mix?
I am controversial in my family. I use chorizo in paella (seafood). My South American relatives love it - and demand I use it. The Spanish people I know are 50/50 interested/horrified.
This was all seafood, but who owns the villas we rented cooked it, was really good. Though I am paying now for the level indulgence on beverages
So had a fabulous day at the cricket yesterday. Brook is the real deal although it might have been a different story if Head or Zander were playing. Was what might be generously called a boisterous crowd. By the time the rain came it was all over.
So had a fabulous day at the cricket yesterday. Brook is the real deal although it might have been a different story if Head or Zander were playing. Was what might be generously called a boisterous crowd. By the time the rain came it was all over.
As much as I love cricket, beating the Aussies, and Durham, I really couldn’t cope with watching a cricket match in Durham in late September.
Talking to a guy who does cheap US road trips this morning who said this year what were 50 dollar motels are now 100 dollar motels.
It's the economy, stupid
And Trump's plan to solve the problem is... tariffs, raising prices even further.
Did you see his latest.
John Deere are looking at moving some tractor production to Mexico.
Trump has told them to reconsider or when he is elected President it will be 200% tariffs.
I guess it is good politics though.
To an audience of farmers ? Questionable. (Also economically bananas.)
Note that he's also declaring unchecked power to bypass Congress on tariffs.
It is not just the farmers he is addressing though, it is the campaign as a whole and it got noticed. It has been over social media and on the news in the USA. It will certainly not do him any harm with voters whose jobs are being offshored. A message he is constantly getting over.
So yes, it is good politics in my view.
Also, as I have said before, I think his policies on Tariffs is crazy already. We need less restrictions to trade not more.
Manufacturing jobs being offshored to Mexico has been a theme in the flyover states ever since the NAFTA agreement was signed. It’s had a similar effect in Appalachia to the end of coal mining in Northern England in the ‘70s and ‘80s, with whole communities holllowed out and a feeling that no-one is speaking up for them.
Which is why Trump is telling manufacturers he’ll be putting tarrifs on companies who relocate American jobs to Mexico.
Trump lost more manufacturing jobs than any president since Hoover. Biden is actually bringing them back. To flyover states.
Manufacturing jobs increased under Trump until covid hit. The million jobs lost because of covid have slowly returned.
Jobs were lost for similar reasons to why prices have risen - outside events.
Both would have happened whoever was in government at the time.
Trump is blaming Biden for inflation so he can’t have it both ways . He can therefore own the loss in manufacturing jobs given it was equally an outside event .
Biden blamed Trump for job losses, Trump now blames Biden/Harris for price rises.
Trump say the job losses were caused by covid, Biden/Harris says the price rises were caused by covid.
Its what politicians do.
Voters then make their decision.
We're grown ups on this site we can see through the cheerleading on each side.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Good post. As usual, you take a rational view, a view which is needed here.
Please don't leave!
A bribe is a. Bribe though, these people don,t do it out of benevolence. There is always a quid pro Quo
I suspect that Starmer is self-righteous and not a good listener and his advisors don't like to challenge him. It also seems that he feels entitled.
My theory is, he has given up a lot of money to go into politics and thinks we should be grateful to him for this. Therefore, he doesn't feel any guilt for accepting gifts.
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
Are you on holiday Malc? Or is it unseasonably hot north of the border?
On holiday, in the hills outside Malaga, very pleasant and hot
Ah, beautiful part of the world, away from the city. Went one October (flew into Malaga) and then up into the hills. Enjoy!
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
Paella - chicken, seafood or a mix?
I am controversial in my family. I use chorizo in paella (seafood). My South American relatives love it - and demand I use it. The Spanish people I know are 50/50 interested/horrified.
This was all seafood, but who owns the villas we rented cooked it, was really good. Though I am paying now for the level indulgence on beverages
Next time, look for some Alain Geoffroy, Chablis 1er Cru, Fourchaume
You'll get much less of a hangover from that. And it's not even mad prices.
Talking to a guy who does cheap US road trips this morning who said this year what were 50 dollar motels are now 100 dollar motels.
It's the economy, stupid
And Trump's plan to solve the problem is... tariffs, raising prices even further.
Did you see his latest.
John Deere are looking at moving some tractor production to Mexico.
Trump has told them to reconsider or when he is elected President it will be 200% tariffs.
I guess it is good politics though.
To an audience of farmers ? Questionable. (Also economically bananas.)
Note that he's also declaring unchecked power to bypass Congress on tariffs.
It is not just the farmers he is addressing though, it is the campaign as a whole and it got noticed. It has been over social media and on the news in the USA. It will certainly not do him any harm with voters whose jobs are being offshored. A message he is constantly getting over.
So yes, it is good politics in my view.
Also, as I have said before, I think his policies on Tariffs is crazy already. We need less restrictions to trade not more.
Manufacturing jobs being offshored to Mexico has been a theme in the flyover states ever since the NAFTA agreement was signed. It’s had a similar effect in Appalachia to the end of coal mining in Northern England in the ‘70s and ‘80s, with whole communities holllowed out and a feeling that no-one is speaking up for them.
Which is why Trump is telling manufacturers he’ll be putting tarrifs on companies who relocate American jobs to Mexico.
Trump lost more manufacturing jobs than any president since Hoover. Biden is actually bringing them back. To flyover states.
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
You are doing things in a hurry - taking the donated money allows the problem to be solved quickly.
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
Paella - chicken, seafood or a mix?
I am controversial in my family. I use chorizo in paella (seafood). My South American relatives love it - and demand I use it. The Spanish people I know are 50/50 interested/horrified.
I always use Chorizo in a seafood Paella, but not in a Chicken one although Chorizo and chicken go find in a Spanish Chicken Stew or a Cassoulet.
Talking to a guy who does cheap US road trips this morning who said this year what were 50 dollar motels are now 100 dollar motels.
It's the economy, stupid
And Trump's plan to solve the problem is... tariffs, raising prices even further.
Did you see his latest.
John Deere are looking at moving some tractor production to Mexico.
Trump has told them to reconsider or when he is elected President it will be 200% tariffs.
I guess it is good politics though.
To an audience of farmers ? Questionable. (Also economically bananas.)
Note that he's also declaring unchecked power to bypass Congress on tariffs.
It is not just the farmers he is addressing though, it is the campaign as a whole and it got noticed. It has been over social media and on the news in the USA. It will certainly not do him any harm with voters whose jobs are being offshored. A message he is constantly getting over.
So yes, it is good politics in my view.
Also, as I have said before, I think his policies on Tariffs is crazy already. We need less restrictions to trade not more.
Manufacturing jobs being offshored to Mexico has been a theme in the flyover states ever since the NAFTA agreement was signed. It’s had a similar effect in Appalachia to the end of coal mining in Northern England in the ‘70s and ‘80s, with whole communities holllowed out and a feeling that no-one is speaking up for them.
Which is why Trump is telling manufacturers he’ll be putting tarrifs on companies who relocate American jobs to Mexico.
Trump lost more manufacturing jobs than any president since Hoover. Biden is actually bringing them back. To flyover states.
My obscure find for the day is Gerard Hoffnung at the Oxford Union in 1958 at the age of 33. Hoffnung was imo like an earlier version of Richard Stilgo, who died young.
This is some raconteur-ing with an appeal why younger people should stand up for causes they believe in at the end, especially the Arts.
From his obituary a year later: Hoffnung was among other things an artist, a musician, a linguist, a raconteur, a Quaker, a bon viveur, a prison visitor and a mime. It is usual to say that a man has left behind a gap that cannot be filled. For Gerard Hoffnung there would be needed a handful of men, all of them greatly gifted.
Glad to see I get substantially more from ALCS than Starmer does
#academicsnoutsinthetrough
I didn't know about PLR / ALCS for about five years after my first book was out. Got almost £500 in the first year in accumulated backpay. Well worth the admin.
There was one year that I got £5k*. I'd been signed up a for a few years and never got close to that before or since - occasionally clear £1k, but mostly £500-£1000 - so I don't know what was going on there. I can't work out whether it's notionally a flat fee based on averages or there's actually some tracking of e.g. downloads of papers etc.
*happily towards the end of PhD, so I didn't have any other notable taxable income as the stipend wasn't taxable, just a bit of teaching work, so got to keep it all
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Good post. As usual, you take a rational view, a view which is needed here.
Please don't leave!
A bribe is a. Bribe though, these people don,t do it out of benevolence. There is always a quid pro Quo
No such thing as a free lunch, as they say, Malc.
Would they do it if Starmer was just a toolmakers son working in a factory somewhere as opposed to a man in a position of power and influence ?
So had a fabulous day at the cricket yesterday. Brook is the real deal although it might have been a different story if Head or Zander were playing. Was what might be generously called a boisterous crowd. By the time the rain came it was all over.
As much as I love cricket, beating the Aussies, and Durham, I really couldn’t cope with watching a cricket match in Durham in late September.
I salute your fortitude.
I love the area but imagine living here in late September !!!
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Crikey - you really need to allow us Tories to have our moment of fun and trolling about Labour before we are here fending Jenrick or Badenoch. It’s been a hard 4 years being Tory so a few months is the least we deserve. Don’t. Flounce - stay and enjoy the other side’s woes.
One thing I think Foxy's excellent recent header didn't pick up on ?
In a First Among (US) Christians, Young Men Are More Religious Than Young Women At Grace Church in Waco, Texas, the Generation Z gender divide can be seen in the pews. It has the potential to reshape both politics and family life. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/young-men-religion-gen-z.html
If Labour wasn't too get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
People are used to paying 140ish for petrol so if we are going to do it now is a sensible time.
I paid £1.36 at yesterday at Asda for E10 petrol
That's expensive - round here it's £1.32, head to Bishop Auckland and it's £1.29..
I am looking for the wisdom of PB on Malt and Blends.
I am retiring end of the year and like a whiskey but want to get some I have not tried before and are not the sort of mass produced stuff one gets in the supermarket.
I have been watching a youtuber called whiskybothy who has recommended a few.
Anyone tried these, any views and also do Aldi or Lidl actually do decent whiskeys worth a punt ?
My taste in whiskey is wide and varied. I do draw the line at High Commissioner though !!!
Much appreciated in advance.
Single Malt
Arran 10 Yr deanston 12 Yr Ancnoc 12 Yr
Mortlach aged 11 years from signatory Craigellachie 13 Yr Ancnoc 24 Yr
Peaty
Kilhoman sanaig Kilkerran cask strength from glengyle Ledaig Rioja
Blend
Thompson bro 6 year old Macleans nose Campbeltown loch
Even that poll has a 2% swing from Labour to Reform since the general election
That's MoE stuff... but what would a 2% swing from Labour to Reform mean? That might be good for the Tories in some Lab/Con marginals, but it might be bad for them in seats where RefUK are second.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Good post. As usual, you take a rational view, a view which is needed here.
Please don't leave!
Nah, it must be at least three weeks since we had a flounce from a regular, and almost two and a half weeks since they returned. We are overdue.
Glad to see I get substantially more from ALCS than Starmer does
#academicsnoutsinthetrough
I didn't know about PLR / ALCS for about five years after my first book was out. Got almost £500 in the first year in accumulated backpay. Well worth the admin.
There was one year that I got £5k*. I'd been signed up a for a few years and never got close to that before or since - occasionally clear £1k, but mostly £500-£1000 - so I don't know what was going on there. I can't work out whether it's notionally a flat fee based on averages or there's actually some tracking of e.g. downloads of papers etc.
*happily towards the end of PhD, so I didn't have any other notable taxable income as the stipend wasn't taxable, just a bit of teaching work, so got to keep it all
I am looking for the wisdom of PB on Malt and Blends.
I am retiring end of the year and like a whiskey but want to get some I have not tried before and are not the sort of mass produced stuff one gets in the supermarket.
I have been watching a youtuber called whiskybothy who has recommended a few.
Anyone tried these, any views and also do Aldi or Lidl actually do decent whiskeys worth a punt ?
My taste in whiskey is wide and varied. I do draw the line at High Commissioner though !!!
Much appreciated in advance.
Single Malt
Arran 10 Yr deanston 12 Yr Ancnoc 12 Yr
Mortlach aged 11 years from signatory Craigellachie 13 Yr Ancnoc 24 Yr
Peaty
Kilhoman sanaig Kilkerran cask strength from glengyle Ledaig Rioja
Blend
Thompson bro 6 year old Macleans nose Campbeltown loch
If Labour wasn't too get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
People are used to paying 140ish for petrol so if we are going to do it now is a sensible time.
I paid £1.36 at yesterday at Asda for E10 petrol
That's expensive - round here it's £1.32, head to Bishop Auckland and it's £1.29..
Prices vary! The point was adding back the 5p temporary cut will be noticed much less if prices go from £1.30-1.35 back to £1.35-£1.40 which is still on the low side of post Ukraine war prices, than if they were going from say £1.50 to £1.55.
Glad to see I get substantially more from ALCS than Starmer does
#academicsnoutsinthetrough
I didn't know about PLR / ALCS for about five years after my first book was out. Got almost £500 in the first year in accumulated backpay. Well worth the admin.
There was one year that I got £5k*. I'd been signed up a for a few years and never got close to that before or since - occasionally clear £1k, but mostly £500-£1000 - so I don't know what was going on there. I can't work out whether it's notionally a flat fee based on averages or there's actually some tracking of e.g. downloads of papers etc.
*happily towards the end of PhD, so I didn't have any other notable taxable income as the stipend wasn't taxable, just a bit of teaching work, so got to keep it all
I can add papers? Didn't know that.
If published in UK journals (can be hard to tell, I just pop in the ISSNs - sometimes the print one will work and online doesn't or vice versa - some that I think of as UK are rejected). I think the bigger money has been from the books though, but it's hard to tell.
Looking at the latest Quinnipiac poll, it's astonishing that 43% think that Trump is the most honest of the Presidential candidates, and 49% think he's the most in touch with people like them.
If Labour wasn't too get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
People are used to paying 140ish for petrol so if we are going to do it now is a sensible time.
I paid £1.36 at yesterday at Asda for E10 petrol
That's expensive - round here it's £1.32, head to Bishop Auckland and it's £1.29..
Coming down just in time for the Budget to put them back up again!
Asked about the donations, Sir Keir said that around £20,000 he had declared from Lord Alli for unspecified accommodation was for his teenager to study for exams in a “peaceful” atmosphere while the then-Labour leader was overwhelmed with media attention in the run-up to the election.
He should pay VAT on that.
He should pay income tax on that!
Without knowing the specifics - given that he has a 16 year old, I would guess at a residential sixth form college. Something like d’Overbroeck's.
"Without knowing the specifics - I'll speculate wildly anyway".
In the register it says accomodation recieved over a period of 6 weeks from 7 days after the election was announced to just over a week after the election.
We know GCSE dates start on 5th May and finished on 20th June.
Plenty of hot house revision courses over Easter but residential revision in the middle of the exam season ? Don't think so.
Seem much more likely that the whole family decamped to one of Lord Alli's properties in London (or he paid the rent for a short term let.
Malmesbury
D minus
Get prone to flights of fancy. Must try harder.
It was a guess.
You seem upset. Why?
Having been called out on posting sheer rubbish, you seem passive aggressive.
We should all watch very carefully to see what this government does in Lord Alli's interests over the coming months and years.
He will an expectation of something, of that you can be sure.
Something that cannot be bought from Harrods? Imo Lord Alli wants to be in with the in-crowd, as the song has it; close to power; confidante of those running the country. I doubt there is any more to it than that. The unstated deal is he gives them nice things and they talk to him. I doubt he is angling for a government contract, specific legislation, or even a place on an advisory committee. Probably it is just a social thing and should be seen in that light.
Jeffrey Archer without the political edge, perhaps.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Good post. As usual, you take a rational view, a view which is needed here.
Please don't leave!
Nah, it must be at least three weeks since we had a flounce from a regular, and almost two and a half weeks since they returned. We are overdue.
Maybe there needs to be a rota for flouncing? At least you'd know when it was your turn to go? (And then creep back in from lurking).
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
Are you on holiday Malc? Or is it unseasonably hot north of the border?
On holiday, in the hills outside Malaga, very pleasant and hot
Ah, beautiful part of the world, away from the city. Went one October (flew into Malaga) and then up into the hills. Enjoy!
I am looking for the wisdom of PB on Malt and Blends.
I am retiring end of the year and like a whiskey but want to get some I have not tried before and are not the sort of mass produced stuff one gets in the supermarket.
I have been watching a youtuber called whiskybothy who has recommended a few.
Anyone tried these, any views and also do Aldi or Lidl actually do decent whiskeys worth a punt ?
My taste in whiskey is wide and varied. I do draw the line at High Commissioner though !!!
Much appreciated in advance.
Single Malt
Arran 10 Yr deanston 12 Yr Ancnoc 12 Yr
Mortlach aged 11 years from signatory Craigellachie 13 Yr Ancnoc 24 Yr
Peaty
Kilhoman sanaig Kilkerran cask strength from glengyle Ledaig Rioja
Blend
Thompson bro 6 year old Macleans nose Campbeltown loch
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
Next we’ll find out he accepted a large donation for private health care.
Seems Starmer's latest freebie admission of £20,000 for his son to study in a quiet environment was an 18 million pound penthouse in Covent Garden !!!!!
That explains why it cost £20,000 just to read a textbook in peace.
I am looking for the wisdom of PB on Malt and Blends.
I am retiring end of the year and like a whiskey but want to get some I have not tried before and are not the sort of mass produced stuff one gets in the supermarket.
I have been watching a youtuber called whiskybothy who has recommended a few.
Anyone tried these, any views and also do Aldi or Lidl actually do decent whiskeys worth a punt ?
My taste in whiskey is wide and varied. I do draw the line at High Commissioner though !!!
Much appreciated in advance.
Single Malt
Arran 10 Yr deanston 12 Yr Ancnoc 12 Yr
Mortlach aged 11 years from signatory Craigellachie 13 Yr Ancnoc 24 Yr
Peaty
Kilhoman sanaig Kilkerran cask strength from glengyle Ledaig Rioja
Blend
Thompson bro 6 year old Macleans nose Campbeltown loch
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Good post. As usual, you take a rational view, a view which is needed here.
Please don't leave!
Nah, it must be at least three weeks since we had a flounce from a regular, and almost two and a half weeks since they returned. We are overdue.
Maybe there needs to be a rota for flouncing? At least you'd know when it was your turn to go? (And then creep back in from lurking).
Also we need judging for the quality of the flounce.
"It's a 5.7 from @malcolmg, 5.8 from @rcs1000 and 5.9 from the East German judge"
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
Yup.
First stop, the Treasury models that say that all investment, outside London, is a waste of time.
Even that poll has a 2% swing from Labour to Reform since the general election
That's MoE stuff... but what would a 2% swing from Labour to Reform mean? That might be good for the Tories in some Lab/Con marginals, but it might be bad for them in seats where RefUK are second.
There is a significant trend to watch not detected by poll leads. This is the total support for Lab/Con (here at 54%). At the GE 2024 it was 57.4%. In GE 2019 it was 75.5%. At GE 2017 it was 82%. This is significant, and on trend it could go below 50%. At that point the media begin to notice, after which voters begin to notice. After which everyone notices that Reform has the votes and LDs have the seats and there are actual alternatives.
If Labour is seen to disappoint (jury out), and the Tories contuinue to be useless (almost certain, how could it be otherwise given the potential leaders?) this trend is massive and potentially epoch making.
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
This all seems so obvious. 80% of our problems come from lack of investment, and a chunk of the rest are related in terms of planning and delivery.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
Only because we have yet to see what, if anything, comes from it.
It is still a bad look for someone who promised to clean up politics.
I note this hasn't had much discussion on here, because it's potentially "good" for Trump.
It's been discussed here ad nauseam, that had the GOP run a generic candidate rather than Trump, they'd likely have won this year. That Gallup piece is saying much the same thing.
So no big deal.
You need to let go the idea that there's some conspiracy of silence on PB.
It's no conspiracy that anything or anyone that looks vaguely pro Trump is bullied or trash-talked. Which means many stay silent.
Fact.
No-one posting stuff supporting Trump winning the election gets bullied or trash talked. Posters who post stuff supporting Trumps views get challenged, perhaps trash talkeed but not bullied. Same as anyone posting marxist or Putinist stuff get challenged and perhaps trash talked.
Its what happens on a debating forum.
The snowflakes cannot handle it
You are allowed one (1) shot of the cask strength turnip juice.
Malmesbury, it would kill me just now, I am suffering f from over indulgence last night. We had a paella night and far too much too drink, so recovering in the shade this.morning as it is very hot. May have to be shandy to start today.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
He literally used his contacts and inflence.
In a perfect world you might pack them off to the grandparents or siblings, might work with a 16 year old for a few days but I doubt many would stand it for 6 weeks.
We should all watch very carefully to see what this government does in Lord Alli's interests over the coming months and years.
He will an expectation of something, of that you can be sure.
Something that cannot be bought from Harrods? Imo Lord Alli wants to be in with the in-crowd, as the song has it; close to power; confidante of those running the country. I doubt there is any more to it than that. The unstated deal is he gives them nice things and they talk to him. I doubt he is angling for a government contract, specific legislation, or even a place on an advisory committee. Probably it is just a social thing and should be seen in that light.
Jeffrey Archer without the political edge, perhaps.
Maybe he saw Fail Safe and saw himself as Prof. Groeteschele - holding forth at diner parties for the rich and politically connected, before heading down to the crisis room.
If Labour wasn't too get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
People are used to paying 140ish for petrol so if we are going to do it now is a sensible time.
I paid £1.36 at yesterday at Asda for E10 petrol
That's expensive - round here it's £1.32, head to Bishop Auckland and it's £1.29..
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
The Treasury seems to regard most forms of economic activity as evil.
So had a fabulous day at the cricket yesterday. Brook is the real deal although it might have been a different story if Head or Zander were playing. Was what might be generously called a boisterous crowd. By the time the rain came it was all over.
As much as I love cricket, beating the Aussies, and Durham, I really couldn’t cope with watching a cricket match in Durham in late September.
I salute your fortitude.
It was actually pleasantly warm most of the time. It was only when the rain came it got cold.
Labour will be very happy with that poll. Doing unpopular (necessary) things, telling the truth about the state of the public finances and the difficult road ahead. Frockgate/Currygate/Donkeygate doesn't seem to have many any difference to VI.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
Good morning indeed. I am genuinely entertained by just how bad Labour have been at politics since winning the election. The WFA move and the Child Benefit Cap retention were just plain wrong. Had they been able to pivot from "this was bad but thanks to this we can do x which is good" then maybe they would have got away with it.
Instead, as you say, the x is freebie freebie freebie. If they not grow up and start doing serious politics then this will absolutely fade into nothing - with a few exception there is always a bigger scandal down the road.
As for the PB Tory vs PB non-Tory thing, surely there is a balance to strike? Labour's performance has been laughable, pitiful, comedic. But despite all that it's still better than the performance of SunakTrussJohnson. As this morning's poll shows. And however bad Labour have been recently we know the Tories about say Hold My Beer and have the Parade of Losers at their conference where we find out whether Who? Because-its-a-Shithole, BadEnoch or JENRICK is the crowd favourite.
Jenrick would be MEGA - for every other party. And yet he seems to be the firm favourite. Are Tories really that stupid? To vote for that?
Another fart.
For some reason your posts make me want to defend Labour.
You may find yourself wanting to do that increasingly often. The next, what, 3 years are going to see a concerted threat to the Lab-Con duopoly from a slightly weird triumvirate of Reform (who’ll be the loudest and most commentated on), Greens (who’ll stand to gain big-time from Labour disillusionment- essentially taking the role the Lib Dems had in 2001-2010), and the Lib Dems who will go about their job more quietly but will be hard at work in their regions, particularly if Jenrick wins the leadership.
The Green Party - totally undeserved in my view given their nonsensical policy mix of crank student lefty and eco-NIMBY - are going to be big winners in the next few council election rounds. Possibly parliamentary byelections too, if the opportunity arises.
The Greens have a dilemma.
Of the 4 seats they hold are student lefty types and two are eco-NIMBY.
There is very little common ground between both types and look at the furious reaction from the student lefty types when the hapless Carla Denyer tweeted praising Joe Biden when he stood down. Suffice to say she collapsed like a house of cards under the pressure of a few angry tweets.
The Green Party, as it gains more seats and more councils, will move from playing at politics and opposing for the sake of it to having to deliver and having to compromise.
The Liberals have 72 seats thanks to its refusal to do exactly that. Until it is threatened with actual power, the Greens's best option is to be all things to all men, with a Green tint. Realistic politics is for those with a realistic chance of power.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
We should all watch very carefully to see what this government does in Lord Alli's interests over the coming months and years.
He will an expectation of something, of that you can be sure.
Something that cannot be bought from Harrods? Imo Lord Alli wants to be in with the in-crowd, as the song has it; close to power; confidante of those running the country. I doubt there is any more to it than that. The unstated deal is he gives them nice things and they talk to him. I doubt he is angling for a government contract, specific legislation, or even a place on an advisory committee. Probably it is just a social thing and should be seen in that light.
Jeffrey Archer without the political edge, perhaps.
Jeffrey Archer without the lying, theft, prostitutes, perjury and prison.
Glad to see I get substantially more from ALCS than Starmer does
#academicsnoutsinthetrough
I didn't know about PLR / ALCS for about five years after my first book was out. Got almost £500 in the first year in accumulated backpay. Well worth the admin.
There was one year that I got £5k*. I'd been signed up a for a few years and never got close to that before or since - occasionally clear £1k, but mostly £500-£1000 - so I don't know what was going on there. I can't work out whether it's notionally a flat fee based on averages or there's actually some tracking of e.g. downloads of papers etc.
*happily towards the end of PhD, so I didn't have any other notable taxable income as the stipend wasn't taxable, just a bit of teaching work, so got to keep it all
I can add papers? Didn't know that.
If published in UK journals (can be hard to tell, I just pop in the ISSNs - sometimes the print one will work and online doesn't or vice versa - some that I think of as UK are rejected). I think the bigger money has been from the books though, but it's hard to tell.
A rather vague and slapdash arrangement — I think the bigger money has been from the books though, but it's hard to tell — have you considered standing for parliament?
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
Then current fiscal rules already include a totally bogus element - the one about debt falling as % of GDP in the 5th year from now, with 'now' rolling forward a year every 12 months. Even with the bogus element, it is already clear it can't be met.
So, for the poor old punter and taxpayer and honest citizen, the issues are: What is the new fiscal rule to be; how much extra do we borrow for our grandchildren to add to the student loan; what happens when the next black swan comes along to require a trillion more of unexpected borrowing; what happens when international interest rates rise to 8%; and how do we balance current account while increasing massively our debt repayments.
And please put a date on when 'the sun will be shining' so that we can pay back the debt.
Labour will be very happy with that poll. Doing unpopular (necessary) things, telling the truth about the state of the public finances and the difficult road ahead. Frockgate/Currygate/Donkeygate doesn't seem to have many any difference to VI.
Funny old world.
The poll has been deconstructed. And it’s deceptive
The noted movements are from the GE results. The ACTUAL movements from Techne’s last poll - just before the GE - show Labour down SEVEN
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
One thing that I didn't realise until I read the UK Foundations website recently is that, before full expensing was recently brought in, companies were taxed on the investments they made.
All the newspaper articles I'd read over many decades bemoaning the poor state of business investment in the UK, and not one of them mentioned that the tax rules actively discouraged business investment.
If Labour wasn't too get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
People are used to paying 140ish for petrol so if we are going to do it now is a sensible time.
I paid £1.36 at yesterday at Asda for E10 petrol
That's expensive - round here it's £1.32, head to Bishop Auckland and it's £1.29..
Paid £1.279 earlier today.
My wife paid that too in South Tyneside last week.
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
Yup.
First stop, the Treasury models that say that all investment, outside London, is a waste of time.
That's the bit I don't get - investing money in Manchester / Leeds would surely show a decent return (albeit probably not quite London levels but it would be decent).
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It has been speculated upon, and there's no evidence I have seen, that Starmer and his wife now live very separate lives.
This would certainly accord with all the bachelor pad style living in various kindly donated bolt holes.
If it is true (and it's a HUGE if), I have no idea how they plan to survive cooped up in a small flat in Number 10, even with Boris's beautiful wallpaper to cheer them up.
I am looking for the wisdom of PB on Malt and Blends.
I am retiring end of the year and like a whiskey but want to get some I have not tried before and are not the sort of mass produced stuff one gets in the supermarket.
I have been watching a youtuber called whiskybothy who has recommended a few.
Anyone tried these, any views and also do Aldi or Lidl actually do decent whiskeys worth a punt ?
My taste in whiskey is wide and varied. I do draw the line at High Commissioner though !!!
Much appreciated in advance.
Single Malt
Arran 10 Yr deanston 12 Yr Ancnoc 12 Yr
Mortlach aged 11 years from signatory Craigellachie 13 Yr Ancnoc 24 Yr
Peaty
Kilhoman sanaig Kilkerran cask strength from glengyle Ledaig Rioja
Blend
Thompson bro 6 year old Macleans nose Campbeltown loch
Taz, I like glenrothes
I love Tamnavulin. Not sure lf the spelling. It’s like a slightly lighter MacAllan. A small distillery in the north east.
If Labour wasn't too get a handle on the public finances the winter fuel allowance is only going to be the start of it. One of the big tests will be not cancelling the planned fuel duty increase.
People are used to paying 140ish for petrol so if we are going to do it now is a sensible time.
I paid £1.36 at yesterday at Asda for E10 petrol
That's expensive - round here it's £1.32, head to Bishop Auckland and it's £1.29..
Paid £1.279 earlier today.
My wife paid that too in South Tyneside last week.
The new garage where the dodgy carwash was on the A184 is remarkably cheap
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
Good morning indeed. I am genuinely entertained by just how bad Labour have been at politics since winning the election. The WFA move and the Child Benefit Cap retention were just plain wrong. Had they been able to pivot from "this was bad but thanks to this we can do x which is good" then maybe they would have got away with it.
Instead, as you say, the x is freebie freebie freebie. If they not grow up and start doing serious politics then this will absolutely fade into nothing - with a few exception there is always a bigger scandal down the road.
As for the PB Tory vs PB non-Tory thing, surely there is a balance to strike? Labour's performance has been laughable, pitiful, comedic. But despite all that it's still better than the performance of SunakTrussJohnson. As this morning's poll shows. And however bad Labour have been recently we know the Tories about say Hold My Beer and have the Parade of Losers at their conference where we find out whether Who? Because-its-a-Shithole, BadEnoch or JENRICK is the crowd favourite.
Jenrick would be MEGA - for every other party. And yet he seems to be the firm favourite. Are Tories really that stupid? To vote for that?
Another fart.
For some reason your posts make me want to defend Labour.
You may find yourself wanting to do that increasingly often. The next, what, 3 years are going to see a concerted threat to the Lab-Con duopoly from a slightly weird triumvirate of Reform (who’ll be the loudest and most commentated on), Greens (who’ll stand to gain big-time from Labour disillusionment- essentially taking the role the Lib Dems had in 2001-2010), and the Lib Dems who will go about their job more quietly but will be hard at work in their regions, particularly if Jenrick wins the leadership.
The Green Party - totally undeserved in my view given their nonsensical policy mix of crank student lefty and eco-NIMBY - are going to be big winners in the next few council election rounds. Possibly parliamentary byelections too, if the opportunity arises.
The Greens have a dilemma.
Of the 4 seats they hold are student lefty types and two are eco-NIMBY.
There is very little common ground between both types and look at the furious reaction from the student lefty types when the hapless Carla Denyer tweeted praising Joe Biden when he stood down. Suffice to say she collapsed like a house of cards under the pressure of a few angry tweets.
The Green Party, as it gains more seats and more councils, will move from playing at politics and opposing for the sake of it to having to deliver and having to compromise.
The Liberals have 72 seats thanks to its refusal to do exactly that. Until it is threatened with actual power, the Greens's best option is to be all things to all men, with a Green tint. Realistic politics is for those with a realistic chance of power.
Yes, I agree, that has been the Lib Dem approach and been succesful. Look at what happened to the Lib Dems when they had real power and found out that posturing for electoral advantage was incompatible with real politics. They were battered in 2015 as a consequence
Best for the Greens to just stay where they are and try to become a party of protest and target Lib Dem/Tories in the shires and labour in the cities.
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
This all seems so obvious. 80% of our problems come from lack of investment, and a chunk of the rest are related in terms of planning and delivery.
I think 80% is a little high, productivity and the quality of training as well as poor management make up more than 20%. But yes, there is huge room for improvement both in the quantity of investment and the ancillary costs we generate in implementing it.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
Yup.
First stop, the Treasury models that say that all investment, outside London, is a waste of time.
That's the bit I don't get - investing money in Manchester / Leeds would surely show a decent return (albeit probably not quite London levels but it would be decent).
It is the kind of self evidently stupid result, that should get a model thrown out.
Even if it were true, in a hard-return-on-investment basis, politics and economics demand that the regions are built up towards London's prosperity.
Labour will be very happy with that poll. Doing unpopular (necessary) things, telling the truth about the state of the public finances and the difficult road ahead. Frockgate/Currygate/Donkeygate doesn't seem to have many any difference to VI.
Funny old world.
The poll has been deconstructed. And it’s deceptive
The noted movements are from the GE results. The ACTUAL movements from Techne’s last poll - just before the GE - show Labour down SEVEN
Comments
As usual, you take a rational view, a view which is needed here.
Please don't leave!
I know for a fact that politicians and their families live under threats that have escalated a lot since last October.
There’s a few groups who think Starmer is a paedophile enabler/Brexit stopper and will try and be violent.
I don't think it's the sort of thing that changes anyone's minds by itself, but it's the sort of thing which affects people's perceptions of everything else that happens.
To some people from my youngest daughter's school, having a spare flat in London where the kids can study quietly would be perfectly sensible.
One joke is, apparently, asking a boy in her class how many houses the family owns, at the time. He has to think about which ones have been bought and sold and solemnly enumerates them. Nice kid - his idea of fun is helping other kids with the classwork, when he has finished his own.
#academicsnoutsinthetrough
Depends of the 15 year old as well. I related, the other day, the story of a friend's son, who was baby sitting, who dealt with a fire perfectly. You could easily imagine him camping in the woods on his own, just fine.
I salute your fortitude.
Trump say the job losses were caused by covid, Biden/Harris says the price rises were caused by covid.
Its what politicians do.
Voters then make their decision.
We're grown ups on this site we can see through the cheerleading on each side.
"It has the feel of a knacker’s yard — a tired, end-of-term government mired in sleaze and briefing wars after just two months in office."
https://unherd.com/2024/09/labour-conference-can-only-get-better/
You'll get much less of a hangover from that. And it's not even mad prices.
He can campaign on what he wants.
As will Harris.
Who the voters chose to believe is what matters.
It is encumbent on the democrats to push back on that and make that point.
Thanks for the header, @TSE .
My obscure find for the day is Gerard Hoffnung at the Oxford Union in 1958 at the age of 33. Hoffnung was imo like an earlier version of Richard Stilgo, who died young.
This is some raconteur-ing with an appeal why younger people should stand up for causes they believe in at the end, especially the Arts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOGfg1B3ZMw
From his obituary a year later:
Hoffnung was among other things an artist, a musician, a linguist, a raconteur, a Quaker, a bon viveur, a prison visitor and a mime. It is usual to say that a man has left behind a gap that cannot be filled. For Gerard Hoffnung there would be needed a handful of men, all of them greatly gifted.
*happily towards the end of PhD, so I didn't have any other notable taxable income as the stipend wasn't taxable, just a bit of teaching work, so got to keep it all
Would they do it if Starmer was just a toolmakers son working in a factory somewhere as opposed to a man in a position of power and influence ?
Course not.
But, they might become so.
I am retiring end of the year and like a whiskey but want to get some I have not tried before and are not the sort of mass produced stuff one gets in the supermarket.
I have been watching a youtuber called whiskybothy who has recommended a few.
Anyone tried these, any views and also do Aldi or Lidl actually do decent whiskeys worth a punt ?
My taste in whiskey is wide and varied. I do draw the line at High Commissioner though !!!
Much appreciated in advance.
Single Malt
Arran 10 Yr
deanston 12 Yr
Ancnoc 12 Yr
Mortlach aged 11 years from signatory
Craigellachie 13 Yr
Ancnoc 24 Yr
Peaty
Kilhoman sanaig
Kilkerran cask strength from glengyle
Ledaig Rioja
Blend
Thompson bro 6 year old
Macleans nose
Campbeltown loch
Why ?
Jeffrey Archer without the political edge, perhaps.
AHAHAHAHAHAH
https://www.ft.com/content/9ed9df4c-1c67-41d9-98a6-6e7c84de8429
££ but the long and short of it is the OECD chief economist is saying the current fiscal rules are bad news for investment and need an overhaul. This occurring as Reeves prepares the ground for a reform that will distinguish between current and investment spending.
This *could* be very good long term news for the economy if done properly. We are badly in need of investment across the entire economy: in the public sector, in the private sector, and in that huge bit of the Venn diagram that is the private sector supported or regulated by the public sector.
We are a nation of asset-sweaters and accountants, not capex investors. Reforming the fiscal rules won't be enough, and it could go wrong, but it's a start.
"It's a 5.7 from @malcolmg, 5.8 from @rcs1000 and 5.9 from the East German judge"
First stop, the Treasury models that say that all investment, outside London, is a waste of time.
If Labour is seen to disappoint (jury out), and the Tories contuinue to be useless (almost certain, how could it be otherwise given the potential leaders?) this trend is massive and potentially epoch making.
It is still a bad look for someone who promised to clean up politics.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/25/britains-economic-growth-revised-up-sharply-ahead-of-budget/
OECD suggests UK growth to lead the G7 at 1.1% this year, revised up from 0.4%.
In a perfect world you might pack them off to the grandparents or siblings, might work with a 16 year old for a few days but I doubt many would stand it for 6 weeks.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Funny old world.
This is in danger of being secular not cyclical. Declining demographics finally taking their toll, Japan style.
So, for the poor old punter and taxpayer and honest citizen, the issues are: What is the new fiscal rule to be; how much extra do we borrow for our grandchildren to add to the student loan; what happens when the next black swan comes along to require a trillion more of unexpected borrowing; what happens when international interest rates rise to 8%; and how do we balance current account while increasing massively our debt repayments.
And please put a date on when 'the sun will be shining' so that we can pay back the debt.
The noted movements are from the GE results. The ACTUAL movements from Techne’s last poll - just before the GE - show Labour down SEVEN
All the newspaper articles I'd read over many decades bemoaning the poor state of business investment in the UK, and not one of them mentioned that the tax rules actively discouraged business investment.
Mental.
This would certainly accord with all the bachelor pad style living in various kindly donated bolt holes.
If it is true (and it's a HUGE if), I have no idea how they plan to survive cooped up in a small flat in Number 10, even with Boris's beautiful wallpaper to cheer them up.
Best for the Greens to just stay where they are and try to become a party of protest and target Lib Dem/Tories in the shires and labour in the cities.
Even if it were true, in a hard-return-on-investment basis, politics and economics demand that the regions are built up towards London's prosperity.
How the mighty have fallen.