What’s this polling going to look like by the end of Trump’s second term? – politicalbetting.com

viewcode said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

CharlieShark said:

As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.


Matt Dathan
@matt_dathan
Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.

Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.

It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.

Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.

EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....

Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.

The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.

So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.

Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?

Inevitably, "Minority Report"...

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

CharlieShark said:

Expect more to come and unemployment above 5% in next quarter.

Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
Sainsbury’s cuts 3,000 jobs, via
@creery_j

No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).

It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.

So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.

If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.

Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.

The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.

Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”

The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.

That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.

These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.

You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.

I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.

Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.

But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.

Reeves has said some sensible things recently

Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?

Evidence

Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more

Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it

Hmmmmm

It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu

Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.

I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!

Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.

The substance is correct though

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.

So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.

If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.

Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.

The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.

Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”

The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.

That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.

These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.

You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.

I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.

Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.

But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.

Reeves has said some sensible things recently

Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?

Evidence

Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more

Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it

Hmmmmm

It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu

Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.

I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!

Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.

The substance is correct though

A Leon post? I doubt it.

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

CharlieShark said:

As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.


Matt Dathan
@matt_dathan
Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.

Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.

It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.

Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.

EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....

Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.

The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.

So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.

Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?

Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.

I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.

The worst of all possible worlds is to say/do something totally out of place like 'Double verification for online knife delivery will be introduced in new tough legislation'. This was the utterly unsuitable Yvette Cooper response.

CharlieShark said:

bondegezou said:

CharlieShark said:

Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?

A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.

Fine words. Are you following through with this action?

Pulpstar said:

Taz said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bondegezou said:

CharlieShark said:

Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?

A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.

When I was investigating in my pension I left it to my pension advisers to do it and they did an excellent job over 40 years

Problem is for many with workplace DC pots they just let the pension company put them onto the lifestyle fund, or whatever shite they call it and they take their chances with it. May work for some but not for all and there have been people lose out because of it.

Are those funds overweight UK ?

Taz said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.

So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.

If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.

Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.

The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.

Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”

The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.

That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.

These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.

You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.

I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.

Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.

But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.

Reeves has said some sensible things recently

Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?

Evidence

Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more

Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it

Hmmmmm

It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu

Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.

So am I, the news is obsessed with the issue. It's a reality but tedious to continually hear about it. Even the weather girl on GMB bangs on about it when all I want to hear about is what the weather is going to be.

algarkirk said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

CharlieShark said:

As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.


Matt Dathan
@matt_dathan
Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.

Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.

It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.

Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.

EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....

Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.

The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.

So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.

Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?

Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.

I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.

"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.

The point is more that, in some cases, there is no lesson to be learned in that we are already doing as much as can reasonably be done, in a free society, to prevent such events. I'm thinking here of attacks by psychos rather than Grenfell, btw.

In the case of attacks by psychos, we are *not* doing all we could be doing, in terms of psychiatric care availability.

To delve into this difficulty a bit is to dip into deep waters. The psychiatry world has diagnosable diseases, generally treatable, and a large class of untreatable conditions which people label as 'psychopathic' 'sociopathic' 'narcissist', 'borderline personality disorder', 'evil' and so on.

In our society you can lock people up for two big reasons: they have committed a crime, or they are sectionable under mental health legislation. For this you have to be crazy in a way psychiatry recognises. The untreatable stuff fills our prisons and forms a large nuisance class in many communities.

In normal language our prisons are full of people who are mad, as well as being bad. The overlap is gigantic.

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

kinabalu said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

algarkirk said:

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

CharlieShark said:

As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.


Matt Dathan
@matt_dathan
Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.

Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.

It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.

Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.

EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....

Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.

The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.

So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.

Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?

Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.

I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.

"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.

Exactly. Shit happened. Shit happens. Shit will happen. We move on.

However culprits must be caught and punished. We have laws against crimes. Let's enforce them.

By what if the culprits are Proper People? What about their Divine Right(s)?

Taz said:

rottenborough said:

CharlieShark said:

Expect more to come and unemployment above 5% in next quarter.

Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
Sainsbury’s cuts 3,000 jobs, via
@creery_j

No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).

Hold on, the same Sainsburys as this ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm7wj3m28po#:~:text=Sainsbury's has said it will raise hourly pay,help manage a particularly tough cost inflation environment".

Reeves certainly deserves the blame for some of the freeze in hiring and job losses out there but in this case, not sure of that.

Leon said:

DavidL said:

bondegezou said:

CharlieShark said:

Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?

A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.

The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.

I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT

I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest

I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.

So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.

If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.

Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.

The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.

Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”

The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.

That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.

These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.

You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.

I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.

Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.

But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.

Reeves has said some sensible things recently

Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?

Evidence

Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more

Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it

Hmmmmm

It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu

Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.

I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!

Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.

The substance is correct though

A Leon post? I doubt it.

Reeves has intimated the 3rd Heathrow runway plus relaxation of non doms at Davos today

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/rachel-reeves-non-dom-tax-rule-uk-davos?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Foss said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

He stabbed one of the girls 122 times.

Cookie said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.

So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.

If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.

Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.

The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.

Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”

The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.

That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.

These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.

You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.

I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.

Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.

But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.

Reeves has said some sensible things recently

Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?

Evidence

Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more

Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it

Hmmmmm

It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu

Yes, this is what I've been thinking.
Actually, all this stuff was part of their original pitch. And then they got in and had six months of madness for no readily apparent reason during which absolutely every decision they made was wrong and ludicrous and baffling (I exaggerate, but only slightly).
And now they're being forced to compromise with reality. Perhaps it will turn out that they do do the things that need doing. Perhaps it will turn out that they're actually moderately competent at it.

Taz said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

CharlieShark said:

Expect more to come and unemployment above 5% in next quarter.

Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
Sainsbury’s cuts 3,000 jobs, via
@creery_j

No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).

It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket

We used to grab lunch with the kids at the Sainsburys Cafe. It was a nice treat for the kids, the food was relatively nutritious and inexpensive, and we could combine it with the weekly shop so it was convenient too. I was sad when they changed it to a Starbucks.

Marks and Sparks cafe is really decent. Always has a good selection of food and its cheeses scones are nice.

slade said:

Taz said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rottenborough said:

CharlieShark said:

Expect more to come and unemployment above 5% in next quarter.

Alex Wickham
@alexwickham
Sainsbury’s cuts 3,000 jobs, via
@creery_j

No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).

It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket

We used to grab lunch with the kids at the Sainsburys Cafe. It was a nice treat for the kids, the food was relatively nutritious and inexpensive, and we could combine it with the weekly shop so it was convenient too. I was sad when they changed it to a Starbucks.

Marks and Sparks cafe is really decent. Always has a good selection of food and its cheeses scones are nice.

The cafe at my local Morrisons is always busy. One reason is they offer kids-meal free if with an adult.

Foss said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

He stabbed one of the girls 122 times.

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

kenObi said:

Nigelb said:

kenObi said:

Taz said:

malcolmg said:

Taz said:

Most of the public prefer us to be shackled to an economic bloc that is currently in decline rather than one that is motoring ahead by comparison.

Taz, we are adrift and going under, hard to see how we ever get out of the downward spiral when you see the dross that run the country. It is hard to conceive how so many talentless people are politician's.

Indeed and they all, or mainly, seem to come from the same route. Via NGO's, Charities or former SPAD's. No real life experience. We have a business department where the ministers have no real life experience of running a business.

At least Rachel Reeves now seems to get the need you actually have to do something to get growth rather than just speak about it. However there are too many like Ed Miliband in the govt who will stymie growth.

The same Ed Miliband who is steam rolling through solar farms, on shore wind and pylons ?

I think some of his ideas are crackers (carbon capture, 5% reliance on gas also seems a bit low) but he seems one of the few who actually had a plan for when in government and is cracking on with it.

On this, crickets.

Shortlist announced in SMR competition
2 October 2023
https://namrc.co.uk/industry/gbn-smr-shortlist/

My personal view is that small scale reactors will have the same issues as large scale ones (hello NuScale !).

While solar panel costs continue to fall , nuclear costs only ever go one way - and then some, regardless of size or technology.

We might as well bite the bullet and spunk £20 billion on some massive inter-connectors & storage from Morocco.

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

Northern_Al said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so.
I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that.
Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Eabhal said:

Taz said:

kenObi said:

Taz said:

malcolmg said:

Taz said:

Most of the public prefer us to be shackled to an economic bloc that is currently in decline rather than one that is motoring ahead by comparison.

Taz, we are adrift and going under, hard to see how we ever get out of the downward spiral when you see the dross that run the country. It is hard to conceive how so many talentless people are politician's.

Indeed and they all, or mainly, seem to come from the same route. Via NGO's, Charities or former SPAD's. No real life experience. We have a business department where the ministers have no real life experience of running a business.

At least Rachel Reeves now seems to get the need you actually have to do something to get growth rather than just speak about it. However there are too many like Ed Miliband in the govt who will stymie growth.

The same Ed Miliband who is steam rolling through solar farms, on shore wind and pylons ?

I think some of his ideas are crackers (carbon capture, 5% reliance on gas also seems a bit low) but he seems one of the few who actually had a plan for when in government and is cracking on with it.

Objecting to runway 3 at Heathrow and airport expansion, stopping the mine in Cumbria, stopping new oil and gas in the North sea is hardly the act of a man embracing opportunities for growth.

I am all in favour of renewables but for the foreseeable future we will need oil and gas and we will also need oil for the other by products that come from it.

I think it's important to seperate oil and gas.

Gas: New licences would have an immaterial impact on North Sea production, which will fall precipitously over the next 10 years regardless of your policy. We will continue to import a very large proportion from friendly countries like Norway.

Oil: The inverse. New licenses would have a material impact on the amount extracted (though it will still fall off like gas) , but the UK has roughly balanced imports/exports (£30 billion each way).

I think we could have an interesting debate about oil, particularly given it's non-energy uses. But gas is a fantasy, and therefore electricity generation and heating is going to have to be primarily renewables/heat pumps.

I don’t find you remotely credible on this issue.

tlg86 said:

Northern_Al said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so.
I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that.
Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.

Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

Have we done this?

"ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women"

"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.

"Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani "bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds".

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/icc-prosecutor-seeks-arrest-taliban-123449688.html

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

Have we done this?

"ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women"

"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.

"Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani "bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds".

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/icc-prosecutor-seeks-arrest-taliban-123449688.html

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

bondegezou said:

The Trump trade wars reach the UK: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/trump-threatens-retaliation-against-uk-over-tax-on-tech-giants-jc6fqsxtx

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

bondegezou said:

CharlieShark said:

Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?

A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.

The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.

I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT

I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest

I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc

These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.

Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what

Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic

But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals

As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump

Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing

Sandpit said:

carnforth said:

Guido reports Tory theory that Starmer may join this to help with rules of origin:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro-Mediterranean_free_trade_area

New one on me.

The big question there is how does it interact with the CP-TPP agreement?

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

Northern_Al said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so.
I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that.
Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.

Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.

Couzens also hated women.

Still managed to marry one (not an incel, I mean). But fine if you want to call him a terrorist too.

Ok. Although I'm generally happier calling terrorists murderers than murderers terrorists. The "terrorism" label imbues a kind of gravitas that l don't feel is merited much of the time.

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

bondegezou said:

CharlieShark said:

Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?

A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.

The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.

I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT

I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest

I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc

These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.

Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what

Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic

But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals

As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump

Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing

For now, if the Democrats take Congress back in 2026 and the Presidency back in 2028 though they will have noticed the Tech giants leaders kissing Trump's ring and will get tough with them

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.

He seems like a prime candidate for Assisted Dying

Would save us all a fuckton of money. “Hey axel, your life is going to be endless misery from now on, with the occasional prospect of a hideous death in the showers. We can offer these dreamy pills. Think about it”

In fact we should offer it to all of these grotesque monsters mouldering away in prison

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It was a racially-motivated hate crime.

The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.

I doubt he'll last long in prison.

He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.

He seems like a prime candidate for Assisted Dying

Would save us all a fuckton of money. “Hey axel, your life is going to be endless misery from now on, with the occasional prospect of a hideous death in the showers. We can offer these dreamy pills. Think about it”

In fact we should offer it to all of these grotesque monsters mouldering away in prison

In some ways that would be the easy way out, assuming he is sentenced to a long prison term and an inevitable life sentence, even if not a whole life order, he should serve in full the sentence the court gives

MaxPB said:

Leon said:

MaxPB said:

Nigelb said:

.

MaxPB said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.

So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.

If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.

Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.

The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.

Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”

The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.

That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.

These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.

You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.

I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.

Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.

But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.

Reeves has said some sensible things recently

Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?

Evidence

Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more

Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it

Hmmmmm

It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu

I think they might finally have realised if they don't grow the economy Labour will face an extinction level election in 2029, under 50 seats bad.

The next big step is to shit can Ed Miliband and get someone who will build a proper energy generation network immediately and rip up the planning rules on power generation. Bung Rolls Royce £5bn to get the first 2 SMRs built while we're at it.

SouthamObserver said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

bondegezou said:

CharlieShark said:

Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?

A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.

The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.

I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT

I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest

I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc

These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.

Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what

Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic

But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals

As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump

Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing

Investing in Tesla is a bet on Musk, not on the company's actual performance. The other six have long track records of financial delivery. But they need to be able to sell freely in markets outside the US in order to carry on growing. What looks invulnerable now can very quickly look quite precarious. A four year continuation of a bull market that has already been running for quite a while is a bold call.

Eabhal said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

kinabalu said:

tlg86 said:

https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1882405410130276460

@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.

He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.

The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.

So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.

Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.

(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)

It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.

Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.

Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?

Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.

How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?