California is the largest sanctuary state in America. The state has ordered every police department and sheriffs office in the state not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, even if they have committed grievous crimes. Illegals are given free welfare, healthcare and every other conceivable state benefit. They are made immune in every way. Simply put, the government of the State of California aided, abetted and conspired to facilitate the invasion of the United States.
California was invaded by the USA in 1846.
And 2025. Apparently.
It's Trump logic: if Putin has every right to Crimea, then doesn't Mexico have a right to California?
An appalling man, indeed, but I'm not sure one can label him as you have
1. Wrote a number 1 bestselling book 2. Has used three names and written bestsellers in each name 3. Most famous book sold probably 2 million copies 4. Translated into at least 30 languages (and been a bestseller in multiple countries, number 1 in Holland etc) 5. Got a $200,000 advance for a porn novel he wrote in a month
As for his journalism, I believe he is one of the two most-read authors on the oldest, most prestigious magazine in the world, and is also an award winning travel writer, now in his 4th decade of travel writing; and travel writing is the most desired form of journalism, which almost every journalist would love to do. So only the very best get to do it
If that is "mediocre" and "moderate" then you set a high bar, but then you're a failed painter, so perhaps some bitterness has crept in
A brilliant writer. A superb journalist. A right wing lunatic. But nobody is perfect.
Went to my old school too, one of the greatest thriller writers ever to have lived
The day of the Jackal was by far the most famous because the original film was borderline perfect but I actually preferred the Odessa file. His novels , when he was writing about the underbelly of Europe, which he knew so well, were simply outstanding. The further he got from that the weaker they got.
Is the winter fuel payment automatic (a side-effect of tax returns) or do people have to claim it? The latter would significantly impact numbers, I suspect.
Automatic as long as you claim your pension. My wife missed out previously although eligible because she worked past retirement age.
An appalling man, indeed, but I'm not sure one can label him as you have
1. Wrote a number 1 bestselling book 2. Has used three names and written bestsellers in each name 3. Most famous book sold probably 2 million copies 4. Translated into at least 30 languages (and been a bestseller in multiple countries, number 1 in Holland etc) 5. Got a $200,000 advance for a porn novel he wrote in a month
As for his journalism, I believe he is one of the two most-read authors on the oldest, most prestigious magazine in the world, and is also an award winning travel writer, now in his 4th decade of travel writing; and travel writing is the most desired form of journalism, which almost every journalist would love to do. So only the very best get to do it
If that is "mediocre" and "moderate" then you set a high bar, but then you're a failed painter, so perhaps some bitterness has crept in
Where did all this guy's money go though? He still seems to be out there etching shoe leather.
An appalling man, indeed, but I'm not sure one can label him as you have
1. Wrote a number 1 bestselling book 2. Has used three names and written bestsellers in each name 3. Most famous book sold probably 2 million copies 4. Translated into at least 30 languages (and been a bestseller in multiple countries, number 1 in Holland etc) 5. Got a $200,000 advance for a porn novel he wrote in a month
As for his journalism, I believe he is one of the two most-read authors on the oldest, most prestigious magazine in the world, and is also an award winning travel writer, now in his 4th decade of travel writing; and travel writing is the most desired form of journalism, which almost every journalist would love to do. So only the very best get to do it
If that is "mediocre" and "moderate" then you set a high bar, but then you're a failed painter, so perhaps some bitterness has crept in
Where did all this guy's money go though? He still seems to be out there etching shoe leather.
AIUI he enjoys life, from wine to women to wandering the world. And squanders the rest, etc
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
I am way the opposite side of the political divide from Trump on economic migration (whether legal or illegal) but I nevertheless find this an incredibly weak argument.
It boils down to: we can't enforce our own laws because of the economic pain of doing so.
(I realise the tweet was just stating facts rather than drawing conclusions, but the inference is obvious).
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
Weirdly affecting
Four fewer migrant workers the country needs, though.
I knew a few ex coal-miners, and a couple of grass workers very well.
They missed the money (mining paid well), and the camaraderie. But the ones I chatted to seemed not to want their kids working down the mine if other well-paid jobs were available. It was nasty, unpleasant and dangerous work. Opencast was better, but IIRC not as well-paid as underground mines.
I think it's a bit like steam locos (I also knew some ex drivers) - many missed the romance of steam, but not the working conditions when compared to the diesel or electric replacements. At least as full-time work. Not that they didn't complain about the draughts on the new diesel and electric locos...
I worked trawlers, I enjoyed it, the cameradie of the crew....but it was a butt fuck dangerous career....a large percentage of my class died doing it
I am way the opposite side of the political divide from Trump on economic migration (whether legal or illegal) but I nevertheless find this an incredibly weak argument.
It boils down to: we can't enforce our own laws because of the economic pain of doing so.
(I realise the tweet was just stating facts rather than drawing conclusions, but the inference is obvious).
They’ll just have to replace checkout staff in California with automatic tills.
On topic, I was surprised how toxic the original WFA cut proved to be - it's a relatively small hit to pensioners' incomes, especially given how much the state pension has risen over the last two years, and the poorest were protected. Personally, I'd have ridden it out. However, electorally toxic it was, and the U-turn, although politically embarrassing, is politically astute. The backlash should be fairly short-lived, and I don't think it will now be an issue at the next GE.
I think its disastrous.
This was a sensible reform they did, one I repeatedly defended.
Now they've gone back on it, its the worst of all worlds.
They've taken the hit on the reform, yet not kept the economic advantages - and worse, politically, they've shown themselves to be spineless and willing to cave to any pressure even if they're doing the right thing.
Expect the moaning from anyone hit by any comparable reform now to be turned up to 11 as they've shown that's what gets results.
Utterly pathetic and no way to run a country. And weak, weak, weak from a government just elected by a landslide to u-turn on their first "difficult decision".
It's a view, and as I said I supported the cut. But they've done other unpopular things that have been castigated by many or most - private school fees, farmers' IHT, employers' NI, net zero, to name a few - and they haven't backtracked on those despite pressure to do so. I can live with one U-turn.
I don't support the U-turn, I would like them to have kept it. But as you said upthread it is remarkable how toxic it was for them - I've heard plenty of reports that it was the number one issue on the doorstep in the local elections.
I suspect this is in large part a political mess that they couldn't have escaped - a relatively hostile commentariat would have found something else (you've listed several possible things) to castigate them with were it not WFP.
I suspect Labour hoped that, with time, it would have been seen as a relatively sensible cut that signaled a small step towards sound fiscal management. But this narrative clearly hasn't happened, and probably wouldn't have happened - instead it would have remained an albatross around their necks.
I can see the politics that says, after the locals, we can't afford to keep the WFP cut. But I don't like it. Perhaps the UK is simply ungovernable at the moment?
The country isn't ungovernable, but it cannot be governed in the way our political class wish it could.
They would love it if they could just keep running things the way they have been for the past 30 years. They can't. We need institutional reform, and a frank conversation about what we can and cannot afford. Despite what might be claimed, I think voters would be perfectly willing to make trade offs if they felt that their leaders had conviction, and made an effort to sell things to them frankly rather than engage in snake oil sales tactics and obfuscation.
Sorry, slow reply. Do you think that is true even when the 'frank conversation ' is filtered through the commentariat and social media?
I want to believe you are right, but I just can't see the space for that frank conversation at present.
Yes, I honestly do.
People are typically more astute about these things than politicians give them credit for. It requires some great communicators (political communicators have been sorely lacking in politics of late) and it requires someone to sell their end vision, but it is not inconceivable that the public can be persuaded of the need for meaningful reform, including the best way that our money is spent.
It is also about addressing public priorities. I think Reform are forgiven an awful lot at the moment because they fundamentally are speaking for a large chunk of the voting public on immigration in a way other parties haven’t.
An appalling man, indeed, but I'm not sure one can label him as you have
1. Wrote a number 1 bestselling book 2. Has used three names and written bestsellers in each name 3. Most famous book sold probably 2 million copies 4. Translated into at least 30 languages (and been a bestseller in multiple countries, number 1 in Holland etc) 5. Got a $200,000 advance for a porn novel he wrote in a month
As for his journalism, I believe he is one of the two most-read authors on the oldest, most prestigious magazine in the world, and is also an award winning travel writer, now in his 4th decade of travel writing; and travel writing is the most desired form of journalism, which almost every journalist would love to do. So only the very best get to do it
If that is "mediocre" and "moderate" then you set a high bar, but then you're a failed painter, so perhaps some bitterness has crept in
He casts, he drifts his fly downstream, he hooks a big old trout. Well, a moderately sized old trout.
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
Far from it.
Why should only salaried incomes be paying for social care?
Income tax would be a better way to pay for it, 'all in it together'.
Or if you want payments for social care to protect people's inheritances, then do that from inheritance tax.
No reason to only tax people working for a living.
Income tax is a tax, as is inheritance tax (and people already have to sell their homes to pay for residential care).
NI should fund social care and be ringfenced for that though you could extend NI for social care to those retired but not yet in care homes
NI is a tax like any other, it is not hypothecated and hasn't been for almost 30 years.
Indeed, and it was always a tax even when it was hypothecated.
Nope, it was set up as an insurance to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and some healthcare only and should always have been ringfenced just for that
Nope, it was set up as a tax and called insurance.
It was always a tax, the name is irrelevant.
Using your logic we could merge NI and Income Tax as I advocate, keep the criterion for eligibility of the tax as Income Tax is set by today (so all income is covered equally not just wages), but call the revised tax "National Insurance" . . . then claim tax has been abolished.
No as you can't ringfence the army, the police, schools, transport funding etc.
You do realise income tax was originally set up to fund the army in the Napoleonic Wars?
You can't ringfence healthcare or social care or other universal benefits you want funding by the tax called national insurance either.
Yes you can, most OECD nations fund healthcare via social insurance or in the US private healthcare not tax.
Japan etc fund social care via insurance
If you want to fund social care, or healthcare, via insurance then all the more reason to abolish NI and get people to pay for actual insurance.
Instead NI is a tax and the NHS/care is universally available regardless of whether you've ever paid NI or not.
Then you end up with the US problem where mainly private health insurance funded healthcare works for the rich but leaves many middle income and lower income earners unable to afford healthcare if they cannot qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare.
Which is why most OECD nations fund it via government run national health insurance programmes
Indeed, that is the problem with funding it by actual insurance, instead of a tax like we have.
NI is not health insurance, if it were the NHS would be ringfenced only to those who pay for it. Its a tax, no more, no less.
The opposite, funding healthcare just by tax leads to the massive bureaucratic state entity that is our NHS.
As I said state healthcare should be ringfenced so only those who pay into it via national health insurance get it like most OECD nations do with tax only topping it up for the poorest who could not otherwise afford healthcare
So you accept now that NI is merely a tax and agree with my proposal to abolish the tax called NI and you'd like to start again with an actual insurance policy?
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Btw dont think sanctuary cities are california's problem and maybe RCS will comment. California's problem is the electorate can put out things for referendum but they aren't tied to taxation. To give an example here
Free school meals for all school children is the california referendum
It should be Free school meals for all school children and we will raise your tax by 1% to pay for it
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
Weirdly affecting
Four fewer migrant workers the country needs, though.
All is connected. Which is the problem.
I'm surprised how saddened I am by it. Never bothered me before - I happily use automatic tills in supermarkets and don't get upset
Maybe it's just age. Or maybe there really was something about the old set up, that line of smiling faces, the human voices, the nod of recognition, the tepid jokes. A human putting stuff in a bag, sending you off with another smile, then they all start chatting again
It's more like - if a pub replaced all its staff with robots. That's what it feels like
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
Far from it.
Why should only salaried incomes be paying for social care?
Income tax would be a better way to pay for it, 'all in it together'.
Or if you want payments for social care to protect people's inheritances, then do that from inheritance tax.
No reason to only tax people working for a living.
Income tax is a tax, as is inheritance tax (and people already have to sell their homes to pay for residential care).
NI should fund social care and be ringfenced for that though you could extend NI for social care to those retired but not yet in care homes
NI is a tax like any other, it is not hypothecated and hasn't been for almost 30 years.
Indeed, and it was always a tax even when it was hypothecated.
Nope, it was set up as an insurance to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and some healthcare only and should always have been ringfenced just for that
Nope, it was set up as a tax and called insurance.
It was always a tax, the name is irrelevant.
Using your logic we could merge NI and Income Tax as I advocate, keep the criterion for eligibility of the tax as Income Tax is set by today (so all income is covered equally not just wages), but call the revised tax "National Insurance" . . . then claim tax has been abolished.
No as you can't ringfence the army, the police, schools, transport funding etc.
You do realise income tax was originally set up to fund the army in the Napoleonic Wars?
You can't ringfence healthcare or social care or other universal benefits you want funding by the tax called national insurance either.
Yes you can, most OECD nations fund healthcare via social insurance or in the US private healthcare not tax.
Japan etc fund social care via insurance
If you want to fund social care, or healthcare, via insurance then all the more reason to abolish NI and get people to pay for actual insurance.
Instead NI is a tax and the NHS/care is universally available regardless of whether you've ever paid NI or not.
Then you end up with the US problem where mainly private health insurance funded healthcare works for the rich but leaves many middle income and lower income earners unable to afford healthcare if they cannot qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare.
Which is why most OECD nations fund it via government run national health insurance programmes
Indeed, that is the problem with funding it by actual insurance, instead of a tax like we have.
NI is not health insurance, if it were the NHS would be ringfenced only to those who pay for it. Its a tax, no more, no less.
The opposite, funding healthcare just by tax leads to the massive bureaucratic state entity that is our NHS.
As I said state healthcare should be ringfenced so only those who pay into it via national health insurance get it like most OECD nations do with tax only topping it up for the poorest who could not otherwise afford healthcare
So you accept now that NI is merely a tax and agree with my proposal to abolish the tax called NI and you'd like to start again with an actual insurance policy?
We might be getting somewhere.
No, NI was sent up as an insurance for healthcare and unemployment and state pensions and should be ringfenced again for that
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
Far from it.
Why should only salaried incomes be paying for social care?
Income tax would be a better way to pay for it, 'all in it together'.
Or if you want payments for social care to protect people's inheritances, then do that from inheritance tax.
No reason to only tax people working for a living.
Income tax is a tax, as is inheritance tax (and people already have to sell their homes to pay for residential care).
NI should fund social care and be ringfenced for that though you could extend NI for social care to those retired but not yet in care homes
NI is a tax like any other, it is not hypothecated and hasn't been for almost 30 years.
Indeed, and it was always a tax even when it was hypothecated.
Nope, it was set up as an insurance to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and some healthcare only and should always have been ringfenced just for that
Nope, it was set up as a tax and called insurance.
It was always a tax, the name is irrelevant.
Using your logic we could merge NI and Income Tax as I advocate, keep the criterion for eligibility of the tax as Income Tax is set by today (so all income is covered equally not just wages), but call the revised tax "National Insurance" . . . then claim tax has been abolished.
No as you can't ringfence the army, the police, schools, transport funding etc.
You do realise income tax was originally set up to fund the army in the Napoleonic Wars?
You can't ringfence healthcare or social care or other universal benefits you want funding by the tax called national insurance either.
Yes you can, most OECD nations fund healthcare via social insurance or in the US private healthcare not tax.
Japan etc fund social care via insurance
If you want to fund social care, or healthcare, via insurance then all the more reason to abolish NI and get people to pay for actual insurance.
Instead NI is a tax and the NHS/care is universally available regardless of whether you've ever paid NI or not.
Then you end up with the US problem where mainly private health insurance funded healthcare works for the rich but leaves many middle income and lower income earners unable to afford healthcare if they cannot qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare.
Which is why most OECD nations fund it via government run national health insurance programmes
Indeed, that is the problem with funding it by actual insurance, instead of a tax like we have.
NI is not health insurance, if it were the NHS would be ringfenced only to those who pay for it. Its a tax, no more, no less.
The opposite, funding healthcare just by tax leads to the massive bureaucratic state entity that is our NHS.
As I said state healthcare should be ringfenced so only those who pay into it via national health insurance get it like most OECD nations do with tax only topping it up for the poorest who could not otherwise afford healthcare
So you accept now that NI is merely a tax and agree with my proposal to abolish the tax called NI and you'd like to start again with an actual insurance policy?
We might be getting somewhere.
No, NI was sent up as an insurance for healthcare and unemployment and state pensions and should be ringfenced again for that
There are consequences for ringfencing: like, what happens if the National Insurance fund is unable to meet its obligations?
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
Far from it.
Why should only salaried incomes be paying for social care?
Income tax would be a better way to pay for it, 'all in it together'.
Or if you want payments for social care to protect people's inheritances, then do that from inheritance tax.
No reason to only tax people working for a living.
Income tax is a tax, as is inheritance tax (and people already have to sell their homes to pay for residential care).
NI should fund social care and be ringfenced for that though you could extend NI for social care to those retired but not yet in care homes
NI is a tax like any other, it is not hypothecated and hasn't been for almost 30 years.
Indeed, and it was always a tax even when it was hypothecated.
Nope, it was set up as an insurance to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and some healthcare only and should always have been ringfenced just for that
Nope, it was set up as a tax and called insurance.
It was always a tax, the name is irrelevant.
Using your logic we could merge NI and Income Tax as I advocate, keep the criterion for eligibility of the tax as Income Tax is set by today (so all income is covered equally not just wages), but call the revised tax "National Insurance" . . . then claim tax has been abolished.
No as you can't ringfence the army, the police, schools, transport funding etc.
You do realise income tax was originally set up to fund the army in the Napoleonic Wars?
You can't ringfence healthcare or social care or other universal benefits you want funding by the tax called national insurance either.
Yes you can, most OECD nations fund healthcare via social insurance or in the US private healthcare not tax.
Japan etc fund social care via insurance
If you want to fund social care, or healthcare, via insurance then all the more reason to abolish NI and get people to pay for actual insurance.
Instead NI is a tax and the NHS/care is universally available regardless of whether you've ever paid NI or not.
Then you end up with the US problem where mainly private health insurance funded healthcare works for the rich but leaves many middle income and lower income earners unable to afford healthcare if they cannot qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare.
Which is why most OECD nations fund it via government run national health insurance programmes
Indeed, that is the problem with funding it by actual insurance, instead of a tax like we have.
NI is not health insurance, if it were the NHS would be ringfenced only to those who pay for it. Its a tax, no more, no less.
The opposite, funding healthcare just by tax leads to the massive bureaucratic state entity that is our NHS.
As I said state healthcare should be ringfenced so only those who pay into it via national health insurance get it like most OECD nations do with tax only topping it up for the poorest who could not otherwise afford healthcare
So you accept now that NI is merely a tax and agree with my proposal to abolish the tax called NI and you'd like to start again with an actual insurance policy?
We might be getting somewhere.
No, NI was sent up as an insurance for healthcare and unemployment and state pensions and should be ringfenced again for that
No, it wasn't, it was set up as a tax. That's why its based on incomes.
The benefits are set up as benefits. Not ringfenced to those who pay for it.
In no way is it an insurance. Its tax and spend, no different to if it were called Income Tax.
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Very much so.
Same problem we have political parties should say we want to do x, it needs to be payed for though so its y% on your tax bill.
Our problem is parties and its all of them promise goodies but never mention how they will be paid for. I think if a party stood saying this is where your tax goes currently....this is what we want to do. This is the extra tax you will need to pay....
Well yes they wouldn't get voted for next election.....but I think it is worth doing election after election purely so people start to realise all that spending comes with a cost
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
Weirdly affecting
Four fewer migrant workers the country needs, though.
All is connected. Which is the problem.
I'm surprised how saddened I am by it. Never bothered me before - I happily use automatic tills in supermarkets and don't get upset
Maybe it's just age. Or maybe there really was something about the old set up, that line of smiling faces, the human voices, the nod of recognition, the tepid jokes. A human putting stuff in a bag, sending you off with another smile, then they all start chatting again
It's more like - if a pub replaced all its staff with robots. That's what it feels like
Hmm....
Totally get it. And how to balance efficiency and humanity, cost-benefit and niceness, civilization (in the Clark sense) and the need to do enough work to pay for it... It's a tricky question. And I'm not sure that we've collectively begun to engage with it.
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
Far from it.
Why should only salaried incomes be paying for social care?
Income tax would be a better way to pay for it, 'all in it together'.
Or if you want payments for social care to protect people's inheritances, then do that from inheritance tax.
No reason to only tax people working for a living.
Income tax is a tax, as is inheritance tax (and people already have to sell their homes to pay for residential care).
NI should fund social care and be ringfenced for that though you could extend NI for social care to those retired but not yet in care homes
NI is a tax like any other, it is not hypothecated and hasn't been for almost 30 years.
Indeed, and it was always a tax even when it was hypothecated.
Nope, it was set up as an insurance to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and some healthcare only and should always have been ringfenced just for that
Nope, it was set up as a tax and called insurance.
It was always a tax, the name is irrelevant.
Using your logic we could merge NI and Income Tax as I advocate, keep the criterion for eligibility of the tax as Income Tax is set by today (so all income is covered equally not just wages), but call the revised tax "National Insurance" . . . then claim tax has been abolished.
No as you can't ringfence the army, the police, schools, transport funding etc.
You do realise income tax was originally set up to fund the army in the Napoleonic Wars?
You can't ringfence healthcare or social care or other universal benefits you want funding by the tax called national insurance either.
Yes you can, most OECD nations fund healthcare via social insurance or in the US private healthcare not tax.
Japan etc fund social care via insurance
If you want to fund social care, or healthcare, via insurance then all the more reason to abolish NI and get people to pay for actual insurance.
Instead NI is a tax and the NHS/care is universally available regardless of whether you've ever paid NI or not.
Then you end up with the US problem where mainly private health insurance funded healthcare works for the rich but leaves many middle income and lower income earners unable to afford healthcare if they cannot qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare.
Which is why most OECD nations fund it via government run national health insurance programmes
Indeed, that is the problem with funding it by actual insurance, instead of a tax like we have.
NI is not health insurance, if it were the NHS would be ringfenced only to those who pay for it. Its a tax, no more, no less.
The opposite, funding healthcare just by tax leads to the massive bureaucratic state entity that is our NHS.
As I said state healthcare should be ringfenced so only those who pay into it via national health insurance get it like most OECD nations do with tax only topping it up for the poorest who could not otherwise afford healthcare
So you accept now that NI is merely a tax and agree with my proposal to abolish the tax called NI and you'd like to start again with an actual insurance policy?
We might be getting somewhere.
No, NI was sent up as an insurance for healthcare and unemployment and state pensions and should be ringfenced again for that
There are consequences for ringfencing: like, what happens if the National Insurance fund is unable to meet its obligations?
The fence is allowed to be permeable in one direction, in the popular imagination. Funds may always be topped up by central government.
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
You don't quite understand (and fair enough). I normally use self checkouts and have no problem with it
But the Whole Foods set up in Camden was different to normal check outs. They were all in a line behind one counter, and smiled at each customer to invite them to pay. A small but significant interaction. You got to know the faces, they got to know you
So it was much more like a pub where you go to a bar and smile at the bargirl or boy and she nods Hello and gets your drink. Imagine if you went into your local and found that all the bar staff had been replaced by automatic robot drink dispensers
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Depends if the checkout bloke/lady makes eye contact with you. Lately, I've found many of them DO NOT, anecdotally of course.
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Very much so.
I am *very* sceptical of those numbers.
For a start we know approximately how many people are undocumented, through the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues licenses to both citizens and non-citizens.
In total, there are 1.2 million people in California with AB 60 licenses - i.e. those issued to people without proper paperwork. Now not all illegal immigrants will have licenses: some will drive illegally, and some will rely on their friends to get them to and from their place of employment. But AB 60 people are almost certainly the ones who are in employment. And even if we double the number, we only get to 6% of the population of California.
Now, it's possible that Los Angeles is much worse than (for example) San Francisco and the Bay Area. But I'd be surprised.
It's also worth remembering that the jobs with the highest proportion of undocumented workers are in the countryside. Essentially everyone who works picking fruit and vegtables in the Central Valley are undocumented. The places with the highest proportion of undocumented are often the places you'd least expect them.
Undocumented workers in Los Angeles are very heavily concentrated in two areas: construction and domestic help. (With a side helping of food service for independent contractors.) Basically, areas where record keeping is... limited.
Other parts of the economy - particularly the highly unionized entertainment industry - have essentially zero penetration of undocumented workers.
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Very much so.
Almost every single person in LA is a migrant if you do two or three generations.
FFS.
America was built by wave after wave of migrants. Many or even mostly economic migrants.
Trump himself has a Scottish western isle mother and a German grandfather.
Go back far enough, and we all come from Africa.
That is not an argument against immigration control, in the modern world.
Shortest route for early humans to get from Africa to South America?
A massively arduous trek across Arabia, South Asia, East Asia, the Bering Strait, and North America? Or a comparatively leisurely oceanic crossing from, say, Guinea, to Brazil?
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
Weirdly affecting
Four fewer migrant workers the country needs, though.
All is connected. Which is the problem.
I'm surprised how saddened I am by it. Never bothered me before - I happily use automatic tills in supermarkets and don't get upset
Maybe it's just age. Or maybe there really was something about the old set up, that line of smiling faces, the human voices, the nod of recognition, the tepid jokes. A human putting stuff in a bag, sending you off with another smile, then they all start chatting again
It's more like - if a pub replaced all its staff with robots. That's what it feels like
Hmm....
Totally get it. And how to balance efficiency and humanity, cost-benefit and niceness, civilization (in the Clark sense) and the need to do enough work to pay for it... It's a tricky question. And I'm not sure that we've collectively begun to engage with it.
We used to employ a bloke that was totally useless, swept the yard, came with the yard. Didn’t really like to meet the eye of anyone.
We had a cost cutting exercise and told him he was being laid off. It was always difficult to tell if he was understanding.
An appalling man, indeed, but I'm not sure one can label him as you have
1. Wrote a number 1 bestselling book 2. Has used three names and written bestsellers in each name 3. Most famous book sold probably 2 million copies 4. Translated into at least 30 languages (and been a bestseller in multiple countries, number 1 in Holland etc) 5. Got a $200,000 advance for a porn novel he wrote in a month
As for his journalism, I believe he is one of the two most-read authors on the oldest, most prestigious magazine in the world, and is also an award winning travel writer, now in his 4th decade of travel writing; and travel writing is the most desired form of journalism, which almost every journalist would love to do. So only the very best get to do it
If that is "mediocre" and "moderate" then you set a high bar, but then you're a failed painter, so perhaps some bitterness has crept in
Where did all this guy's money go though? He still seems to be out there etching shoe leather.
I believe travel writing doesn't exactly pay that much - it gives you a free holiday but the article itself will only earn you £x00 for a weeks (not exactly hard) work.
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Horses for courses.
Medicines, pharmaceuticals and “family planning”: automatic tills Busy supermarket: automatic tills (but they do need to get better at approving alcohol) Coffee shop: most people prefer a barista Pub: human Busy Thursday evening city pub or noisy club: automated vending would be great Fast food: auto tills Fancy resto: human
A bit like Airbnbs with key safes and codes vs hotels with front desk staff and concierge. Depends on mood and level of sociability.
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Very much so.
I am *very* sceptical of those numbers.
For a start we know approximately how many people are undocumented, through the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues licenses to both citizens and non-citizens.
In total, there are 1.2 million people in California with AB 60 licenses - i.e. those issued to people without proper paperwork. Now not all illegal immigrants will have licenses: some will drive illegally, and some will rely on their friends to get them to and from their place of employment. But AB 60 people are almost certainly the ones who are in employment. And even if we double the number, we only get to 6% of the population of California.
Now, it's possible that Los Angeles is much worse than (for example) San Francisco and the Bay Area. But I'd be surprised.
It's also worth remembering that the jobs with the highest proportion of undocumented workers are in the countryside. Essentially everyone who works picking fruit and vegtables in the Central Valley are undocumented. The places with the highest proportion of undocumented are often the places you'd least expect them.
Undocumented workers in Los Angeles are very heavily concentrated in two areas: construction and domestic help. (With a side helping of food service for independent contractors.) Basically, areas where record keeping is... limited.
Other parts of the economy - particularly the highly unionized entertainment industry - have essentially zero penetration of undocumented workers.
Well, one imagines (without evidence, just from media) that many of the well-paid individuals in the entertainment industry etc have home help.
So the 2 aren't entirely unlinked.
The prevalence of illegals for home help in America, often without any security and facing the risk of deportation if they step out of line, is something that makes me feel rather uncomfortable. Seems very much akin to seeking to reinvent a modern form of indentured servitude or slavery.
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Very much so.
I am *very* sceptical of those numbers.
For a start we know approximately how many people are undocumented, through the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues licenses to both citizens and non-citizens.
In total, there are 1.2 million people in California with AB 60 licenses - i.e. those issued to people without proper paperwork. Now not all illegal immigrants will have licenses: some will drive illegally, and some will rely on their friends to get them to and from their place of employment. But AB 60 people are almost certainly the ones who are in employment. And even if we double the number, we only get to 6% of the population of California.
Now, it's possible that Los Angeles is much worse than (for example) San Francisco and the Bay Area. But I'd be surprised.
It's also worth remembering that the jobs with the highest proportion of undocumented workers are in the countryside. Essentially everyone who works picking fruit and vegtables in the Central Valley are undocumented. The places with the highest proportion of undocumented are often the places you'd least expect them.
Undocumented workers in Los Angeles are very heavily concentrated in two areas: construction and domestic help. (With a side helping of food service for independent contractors.) Basically, areas where record keeping is... limited.
Other parts of the economy - particularly the highly unionized entertainment industry - have essentially zero penetration of undocumented workers.
As an aside, I suspect that undocumented immigrants will be much less likely to file taxes or get auto insurance or driving licenses. Why risk getting your name on a list?
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
Weirdly affecting
Four fewer migrant workers the country needs, though.
All is connected. Which is the problem.
I'm surprised how saddened I am by it. Never bothered me before - I happily use automatic tills in supermarkets and don't get upset
Maybe it's just age. Or maybe there really was something about the old set up, that line of smiling faces, the human voices, the nod of recognition, the tepid jokes. A human putting stuff in a bag, sending you off with another smile, then they all start chatting again
It's more like - if a pub replaced all its staff with robots. That's what it feels like
Hmm....
Totally get it. And how to balance efficiency and humanity, cost-benefit and niceness, civilization (in the Clark sense) and the need to do enough work to pay for it... It's a tricky question. And I'm not sure that we've collectively begun to engage with it.
We used to employ a bloke that was totally useless, swept the yard, came with the yard. Didn’t really like to meet the eye of anyone.
We had a cost cutting exercise and told him he was being laid off. It was always difficult to tell if he was understanding.
He kept coming in. So we kept paying him.
I’ve always been happy with that choice.
We used that technique as kids when clearing drives of snow during the winter. People will always pay.
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Horses for courses.
Medicines, pharmaceuticals and “family planning”: automatic tills Busy supermarket: automatic tills (but they do need to get better at approving alcohol) Coffee shop: most people prefer a barista Pub: human Busy Thursday evening city pub or noisy club: automated vending would be great Fast food: auto tills Fancy resto: human
A bit like Airbnbs with key safes and codes vs hotels with front desk staff and concierge. Depends on mood and level of sociability.
Wetherspoons have an app, if they are busy you just sit down somewhere and order on the app.
No real Tory could ever countenance supporting such economic illiteracy.
The illiteracy was Hezza shutting down profitable pits and then a whole generation of not caring if we make steel or not. When did industry become the holdout for the hard left btw - the capitalist right used to think it was a good idea as it made them rich.
Farage is asking the "what if" questions which millions have been asking for years and years. Sure, it's probably not doable. But he's talking about what we have lost thanks to cross-party vandalism and what we could have again if we took a strategic approach to where we are now and where we want to get to.
Do we want to make steel in the UK yes or no? If yes don't we have 400 years of coal sat underneath Wales waiting to be dug up to power the furnaces?
The pits weren't profitable. Which is why no-one could make them work - sadly, some miner invested their redundancy money in such schemes.
The perception was of a government maliciously targeting people they saw as hostile to their values.
I thought of Mrs Thatcher the other day when some PBers of a 'robust' right wing persuasion were complaining that this Labour government were doing things like VAT on private schools and IHT for farmers out of a desire to punish tory voters.
Ok, so making their school fees a bit more expensive or taking some tax when a chunk of land is passed on is not quite the same as complete loss of livelihood and dignity, but it's the same charge effectively.
The facts were that coal was getting more and more expensive to mine in the U.K. it had been doing so for generations.
At the same time world coal prices were collapsing (due to vast, open cast pits) and gas was coming on line.
Scargill literally wanted an eternal subsidy to support mining no matter what. Thatcher saying no to that was about the fourth no from various governments.
Scargill did not want that. He wanted to bring down the government.
Those were his stated, official terms. Yes, he wanted to bring down the government. Then get those terms from the following government.
I think he saw himself as the following government.
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
No, the best way is for people to save for their own social care through some form of insurance. Taxes are highly distortionary and damaging to economic growth. Funding social care through private sector means on the other hand provides funds for investment (at any rate unless the government further rigs the capital markets to force such funds to invest in its debt) and teaches thrift and personal responsibility, values we as a society seem to have forgotten completely over the last generation.
That would ensure that people who have not been comfortably off in life spend their final years in misery and squalor.
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Horses for courses.
Medicines, pharmaceuticals and “family planning”: automatic tills Busy supermarket: automatic tills (but they do need to get better at approving alcohol) Coffee shop: most people prefer a barista Pub: human Busy Thursday evening city pub or noisy club: automated vending would be great Fast food: auto tills Fancy resto: human
A bit like Airbnbs with key safes and codes vs hotels with front desk staff and concierge. Depends on mood and level of sociability.
Wetherspoons have an app, if they are busy you just sit down somewhere and order on the app.
Unless your food arrives before your drink, which happens sometimes if they're busy.
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Very much so.
I am *very* sceptical of those numbers.
For a start we know approximately how many people are undocumented, through the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues licenses to both citizens and non-citizens.
In total, there are 1.2 million people in California with AB 60 licenses - i.e. those issued to people without proper paperwork. Now not all illegal immigrants will have licenses: some will drive illegally, and some will rely on their friends to get them to and from their place of employment. But AB 60 people are almost certainly the ones who are in employment. And even if we double the number, we only get to 6% of the population of California.
Now, it's possible that Los Angeles is much worse than (for example) San Francisco and the Bay Area. But I'd be surprised.
It's also worth remembering that the jobs with the highest proportion of undocumented workers are in the countryside. Essentially everyone who works picking fruit and vegtables in the Central Valley are undocumented. The places with the highest proportion of undocumented are often the places you'd least expect them.
Undocumented workers in Los Angeles are very heavily concentrated in two areas: construction and domestic help. (With a side helping of food service for independent contractors.) Basically, areas where record keeping is... limited.
Other parts of the economy - particularly the highly unionized entertainment industry - have essentially zero penetration of undocumented workers.
Well, one imagines (without evidence, just from media) that many of the well-paid individuals in the entertainment industry etc have home help.
So the 2 aren't entirely unlinked.
The prevalence of illegals for home help in America, often without any security and facing the risk of deportation if they step out of line, is something that makes me feel rather uncomfortable. Seems very much akin to seeking to reinvent a modern form of indentured servitude or slavery.
The big problem in the US is that there is essentially no consequence for hiring undocumented workers.
In fact, if I want to get around Los Angeles' $76k minimum salary and requirement to provide health insurance, the easiest way to to hire an undocumented migrant.
The ICE sweeps never target the employers of undocumented workers, and so the incentive for firms to keep hiring them is still there. And how many undocumented workers can ICE deport anyway? Even if they managed 1 million a year (which is something like 5 migrants per ICE employee per day), it would barely scratch the surface.
Unless the US is able to stop the massive demand for undocumented labour, then it will keep coming because what's the chance you will get apprehended? And even if you get apprehended, what's the downside? The worst possible outcome is that you get sent back to Hondurus, which is where you started from.
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Horses for courses.
Medicines, pharmaceuticals and “family planning”: automatic tills Busy supermarket: automatic tills (but they do need to get better at approving alcohol) Coffee shop: most people prefer a barista Pub: human Busy Thursday evening city pub or noisy club: automated vending would be great Fast food: auto tills Fancy resto: human
A bit like Airbnbs with key safes and codes vs hotels with front desk staff and concierge. Depends on mood and level of sociability.
Coffee is the amusing one.
Where I often stop there's a choice of 2 places to get a coffee opposite each other.
Costa Coffee - where you can get a Costa Flat White or Latte for £4
Tesco's with a Costa Coffee machine - where you can get a Costa Flat White or Latte, plus a meal, plus a snack, for £3.50
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Over on Rail Forums, half of the posters appear to have an aversion to any form of human interaction.
An appalling man, indeed, but I'm not sure one can label him as you have
1. Wrote a number 1 bestselling book 2. Has used three names and written bestsellers in each name 3. Most famous book sold probably 2 million copies 4. Translated into at least 30 languages (and been a bestseller in multiple countries, number 1 in Holland etc) 5. Got a $200,000 advance for a porn novel he wrote in a month
As for his journalism, I believe he is one of the two most-read authors on the oldest, most prestigious magazine in the world, and is also an award winning travel writer, now in his 4th decade of travel writing; and travel writing is the most desired form of journalism, which almost every journalist would love to do. So only the very best get to do it
If that is "mediocre" and "moderate" then you set a high bar, but then you're a failed painter, so perhaps some bitterness has crept in
Where did all this guy's money go though? He still seems to be out there etching shoe leather.
I believe travel writing doesn't exactly pay that much - it gives you a free holiday but the article itself will only earn you £x00 for a weeks (not exactly hard) work.
I do a bit of travel writing for the Knapper's Gazette, between flints
No, the pay is not that good. But as far as I know there has never been a strike by the Union of Travel Writers, in the entire history of the profession. What would they put on their placards? "Down with Free Five Star Hotels!", "No More Ayurvedic Massages in the Seychelles!". And what bits of the job would they refuse to do? Would they operate a go-slow on luxury safaris?
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
Perhaps California would not be facing that predicament, had its government not decided to be a magnet for illegal immigration,
Doesn't california host a lot of "sanctuary cities"
Very much so.
I am *very* sceptical of those numbers.
For a start we know approximately how many people are undocumented, through the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues licenses to both citizens and non-citizens.
In total, there are 1.2 million people in California with AB 60 licenses - i.e. those issued to people without proper paperwork. Now not all illegal immigrants will have licenses: some will drive illegally, and some will rely on their friends to get them to and from their place of employment. But AB 60 people are almost certainly the ones who are in employment. And even if we double the number, we only get to 6% of the population of California.
Now, it's possible that Los Angeles is much worse than (for example) San Francisco and the Bay Area. But I'd be surprised.
It's also worth remembering that the jobs with the highest proportion of undocumented workers are in the countryside. Essentially everyone who works picking fruit and vegtables in the Central Valley are undocumented. The places with the highest proportion of undocumented are often the places you'd least expect them.
Undocumented workers in Los Angeles are very heavily concentrated in two areas: construction and domestic help. (With a side helping of food service for independent contractors.) Basically, areas where record keeping is... limited.
Other parts of the economy - particularly the highly unionized entertainment industry - have essentially zero penetration of undocumented workers.
I would imagine that one sector of the entertainment industry has plenty of penetration of undocumented workers.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
Yes a novel written in 1948 where Britain had very few people of colour. And a novel that doesn’t actually say if Winston Smith is white, black, brown etc. Eye of the beholder and all that.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
I disagree with the urge to cancel 1984.
Can we cancel 2020 instead? And possibly 2021-25 too.
Ooh, Farage on ITV News. He says he's going to reopen the blast furnaces at Port Talbot.
That's South West Wales sorted.
Although I understood than when the blast furnaces stopped and cooled that was it. Goodnight Vienna. Perhaps Farage has invented a new technique for restarting blast furnaces along with reopening all the deep coal mines that Harold Wilson closed (thanks for the heads up HYUFD).
Given the amount of hot air Farage emits, it's a surprise that he thinks we need the coal as well.
(Really, it's part of nostalgia for half-remembered good times, isn't it? And it's not going to bring his hair back from grey, anyway.)
The closure is still raw in Port Talbot. I do believe that the blast furnaces should have been kept running but the last Government and this Government were keen to move to electric arc furnaces. This of course was all before Trump.
Perhaps the worst part of Farage cynicism is enough voters will buy into both the reopening of deep mines and blast furnaces. Neither are practical options.
Farage is either ill informed or a liar.
I think he's a bit glib, but I don't think he's lying.
There is an element of Boris there - a bullish determination that isn't put off by others telling him things are impossible - because things are often impossible till they aren't.
With Boris however, he was into Garden Bridges, Northern Ireland bridges, Island airports etc. I think Farage's ambitions are somewhat more grounded (in the recent past) and more achievable - so let's see.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
Yes a novel written in 1948 where Britain had very few people of colour. And a novel that doesn’t actually say if Winston Smith is white, black, brown etc. Eye of the beholder and all that.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
I disagree with the urge to cancel 1984.
Can we cancel 2020 instead? And possibly 2021-25 too.
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Over on Rail Forums, half of the posters appear to have an aversion to any form of human interaction.
Bordering on a stereotype to suggestion that rail fanatics are socially awkward.
One PB obsession I've never gotten into is the way it attract so many rail fans.
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
Weirdly affecting
Go north young man. In my town there is, IIRC, exactly one shop with any self check out facility at all; there are outlets that only take cash; in shops we discuss jobs, house moves, cars, the factory, weather for farmers, births, marriages and deaths and it can take an hour to buy milk. In county council politics our ward was contested between my daughter's next door neighbour (Labour) and the bloke who looks after my computer (Tory).
A self-checkout when you've got 3 items and there's a massive throughput of folk buying meal deals, ideal.
Early Saturday morning in a supermarket with a trolleyful of food (I'm old school, I still do a big shop) and it's irritating when there's 8 self-checkouts with 3 folk supporting them and only one proper conveyor belt checkout.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
He isn't suggesting that, is he. It's merely a personal comment on the novel. It is allowed.
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
No, the best way is for people to save for their own social care through some form of insurance. Taxes are highly distortionary and damaging to economic growth. Funding social care through private sector means on the other hand provides funds for investment (at any rate unless the government further rigs the capital markets to force such funds to invest in its debt) and teaches thrift and personal responsibility, values we as a society seem to have forgotten completely over the last generation.
That would ensure that people who have not been comfortably off in life spend their final years in misery and squalor.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
He isn't suggesting that, is he. It's merely a personal comment on the novel. It is allowed.
He sounds like the kind of arse that only reads things that speak to his race and ethnicity. I bet he’s a right laugh at dinner parties.’I can’t eat that cod, it’s so distressingly white. And Riesling? Really? Exceptionally white wine…’
I hate automatic checkouts, unless, as mentioned, I've only got one or two items, and want to get through quickly
I prefer to chat to a person, however cursory, and the more items you have, the more chance that the machine presents you with some annoying mishap or misidentification.
I hate automatic checkouts, unless, as mentioned, I've only got one or two items, and want to get through quickly
I prefer to chat to a person, however cursory, and the more items you have, the more chance that the machine presents you with some annoying mishap or misidentification.
Horses for courses etc. Our campus Co-op used to have manned tills and horrific queues post lecture slots lectures finish at 5 minutes past the hour and the shop was horrific at 15 mins past. They then installed 8 self service tills and bingo hardly any queues. And it’s fine.
But I’d still rather chat with the checkout operator in Waitrose.
I hate automatic checkouts, unless, as mentioned, I've only got one or two items, and want to get through quickly
I prefer to chat to a person, however cursory, and the more items you have, the more chance that the machine presents you with some annoying mishap or misidentification.
I wonder if the automation in Whole Foods is linked to the NIC changes. Britain is becoming a very depressing place
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
He isn't suggesting that, is he. It's merely a personal comment on the novel. It is allowed.
He sounds like the kind of arse that only reads things that speak to his race and ethnicity. I bet he’s a right laugh at dinner parties.’I can’t eat that cod, it’s so distressingly white. And Riesling? Really? Exceptionally white wine…’
You joke, though I know someone who got challenged for "why do you have to mention the colour" for requesting black pepper at a work function.
Errr, because black pepper and white pepper are two very different things and those are their names?
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Over on Rail Forums, half of the posters appear to have an aversion to any form of human interaction.
Bordering on a stereotype to suggestion that rail fanatics are socially awkward.
One PB obsession I've never gotten into is the way it attract so many rail fans.
Just read the thread on seating preferences.
Some would rather sit on the roof than in proximity to their fellow travellers.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
He isn't suggesting that, is he. It's merely a personal comment on the novel. It is allowed.
He sounds like the kind of arse that only reads things that speak to his race and ethnicity. I bet he’s a right laugh at dinner parties.’I can’t eat that cod, it’s so distressingly white. And Riesling? Really? Exceptionally white wine…’
It's not a random "personal comment". It's a Preface to the official 75th anniversary edition of 1984, written by a black female novelist
Is it better or worse than previous efforts? The words say I'm investing in the future of Britain or similar but how does the video show that or tie up with that? (I'm not at all visual, you see, can't read icons either.)
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Over on Rail Forums, half of the posters appear to have an aversion to any form of human interaction.
Bordering on a stereotype to suggestion that rail fanatics are socially awkward.
One PB obsession I've never gotten into is the way it attract so many rail fans.
Just read the thread on seating preferences.
Some would rather sit on the roof than in proximity to their fellow travellers.
Given some of the patrons of rails, that doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable preference!
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Over on Rail Forums, half of the posters appear to have an aversion to any form of human interaction.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
He isn't suggesting that, is he. It's merely a personal comment on the novel. It is allowed.
He sounds like the kind of arse that only reads things that speak to his race and ethnicity. I bet he’s a right laugh at dinner parties.’I can’t eat that cod, it’s so distressingly white. And Riesling? Really? Exceptionally white wine…’
Is it just me that would far rather go through a self-checkout than queue to go through a checkout with a person?
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
Over on Rail Forums, half of the posters appear to have an aversion to any form of human interaction.
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
He isn't suggesting that, is he. It's merely a personal comment on the novel. It is allowed.
He sounds like the kind of arse that only reads things that speak to his race and ethnicity. I bet he’s a right laugh at dinner parties.’I can’t eat that cod, it’s so distressingly white. And Riesling? Really? Exceptionally white wine…’
It's not a random "personal comment". It's a Preface to the official 75th anniversary edition of 1984, written by a black female novelist
It is also ludicrous nonsense
For many years I assumed the character was black - I associated the name Winston with people from the Carribean.
I know you specialise in winding people up on here to amuse yourself but do you ever wonder if people like this are serious, or just genuinely taking the piss? Would be amusing if she does really think this, but knows it will achieve the very effect it’s having on PB.
I hate automatic checkouts, unless, as mentioned, I've only got one or two items, and want to get through quickly
I prefer to chat to a person, however cursory, and the more items you have, the more chance that the machine presents you with some annoying mishap or misidentification.
I wonder if the automation in Whole Foods is linked to the NIC changes. Britain is becoming a very depressing place
Tomorrow, after a clear day and under the Strawberry moon, it might all look a bit different.
Is it better or worse than previous efforts? The words say I'm investing in the future of Britain or similar but how does the video show that or tie up with that? (I'm not at all visual, you see, can't read icons either.)
I've let it loop three times and I'm still none the wiser. Keir writes a note in a book then gets up? "Must try harder"? No idea what it's supposed to convey.
An appalling man, indeed, but I'm not sure one can label him as you have
1. Wrote a number 1 bestselling book 2. Has used three names and written bestsellers in each name 3. Most famous book sold probably 2 million copies 4. Translated into at least 30 languages (and been a bestseller in multiple countries, number 1 in Holland etc) 5. Got a $200,000 advance for a porn novel he wrote in a month
As for his journalism, I believe he is one of the two most-read authors on the oldest, most prestigious magazine in the world, and is also an award winning travel writer, now in his 4th decade of travel writing; and travel writing is the most desired form of journalism, which almost every journalist would love to do. So only the very best get to do it
If that is "mediocre" and "moderate" then you set a high bar, but then you're a failed painter, so perhaps some bitterness has crept in
Where did all this guy's money go though? He still seems to be out there etching shoe leather.
I believe travel writing doesn't exactly pay that much - it gives you a free holiday but the article itself will only earn you £x00 for a weeks (not exactly hard) work.
Not just a free holiday - for that period you don't pay for your food, gas, electricity, water etc. If you're away a lot that must add up to quite a bit.
Breaking: A full Marine battalion, or around 500 Marines, based out of Twentynine Palms in California have been mobilized to respond to protests in LA, sources tell me and @halbritz
Hegseth had put them on prepare to deploy orders over the weekend
I hate automatic checkouts, unless, as mentioned, I've only got one or two items, and want to get through quickly
I prefer to chat to a person, however cursory, and the more items you have, the more chance that the machine presents you with some annoying mishap or misidentification.
I wonder if the automation in Whole Foods is linked to the NIC changes. Britain is becoming a very depressing place
Tomorrow, after a clear day and under the Strawberry moon, it might all look a bit different.
The sun will wash out the greys.
A clear day? That would be a miracle at the moment it seems.
We had a couple of weeks of lovely weather, then just before the Half-Term Holdays/May Bank Holday weekend it started raining and it hasn't stopped since.
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
Far from it.
Why should only salaried incomes be paying for social care?
Income tax would be a better way to pay for it, 'all in it together'.
Or if you want payments for social care to protect people's inheritances, then do that from inheritance tax.
No reason to only tax people working for a living.
Income tax is a tax, as is inheritance tax (and people already have to sell their homes to pay for residential care).
NI should fund social care and be ringfenced for that though you could extend NI for social care to those retired but not yet in care homes
NI is a tax like any other, it is not hypothecated and hasn't been for almost 30 years.
Indeed, and it was always a tax even when it was hypothecated.
Nope, it was set up as an insurance to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and some healthcare only and should always have been ringfenced just for that
Nope, it was set up as a tax and called insurance.
It was always a tax, the name is irrelevant.
Using your logic we could merge NI and Income Tax as I advocate, keep the criterion for eligibility of the tax as Income Tax is set by today (so all income is covered equally not just wages), but call the revised tax "National Insurance" . . . then claim tax has been abolished.
No as you can't ringfence the army, the police, schools, transport funding etc.
You do realise income tax was originally set up to fund the army in the Napoleonic Wars?
You can't ringfence healthcare or social care or other universal benefits you want funding by the tax called national insurance either.
Yes you can, most OECD nations fund healthcare via social insurance or in the US private healthcare not tax.
Japan etc fund social care via insurance
If you want to fund social care, or healthcare, via insurance then all the more reason to abolish NI and get people to pay for actual insurance.
Instead NI is a tax and the NHS/care is universally available regardless of whether you've ever paid NI or not.
Then you end up with the US problem where mainly private health insurance funded healthcare works for the rich but leaves many middle income and lower income earners unable to afford healthcare if they cannot qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare.
Which is why most OECD nations fund it via government run national health insurance programmes
Indeed, that is the problem with funding it by actual insurance, instead of a tax like we have.
NI is not health insurance, if it were the NHS would be ringfenced only to those who pay for it. Its a tax, no more, no less.
The opposite, funding healthcare just by tax leads to the massive bureaucratic state entity that is our NHS.
As I said state healthcare should be ringfenced so only those who pay into it via national health insurance get it like most OECD nations do with tax only topping it up for the poorest who could not otherwise afford healthcare
So you accept now that NI is merely a tax and agree with my proposal to abolish the tax called NI and you'd like to start again with an actual insurance policy?
We might be getting somewhere.
No, NI was sent up as an insurance for healthcare and unemployment and state pensions and should be ringfenced again for that
No, it wasn't, it was set up as a tax. That's why its based on incomes.
The benefits are set up as benefits. Not ringfenced to those who pay for it.
In no way is it an insurance. Its tax and spend, no different to if it were called Income Tax.
No it was set up as an insurance.
The 1911 NI Act created National Insurance to provide health insurance and time limited unemployment benefits, funded by contributions from employers and workers with a small contribution from employers
Time to sack Reeves. She's dangerously incompetent.
Hey Labour have only wasted the most important year of this Government - the one where the grotty things you have to do are 95% forgotten by the time the next election comes round
This spending review is going to send interest rates shooting up and mortgage rates will follow. She's Liz Truss in slow motion. The country can't afford to borrow more and it can't afford higher tax rates. Spending has got to fall and it has to fall on the unproductive bits like pensions and welfare.
She's worse than Liz Truss.
Liz Truss was incompetent but also unfortunate/foolish to coincide her rather trivial reforms with the Bank announcing QT, and her own announcement of the blank cheque on energy bill support.
Had they not announced the tax reforms (besides the pre-announced abolition of the dodgy NI supplement, which Hunt rightly kept abolished) but still had the QT and energy support, then the likelihood is that the markets would still have reacted, but the media would have comprehended the energy/QT effect without any scapegoats.
At least Truss had some sensible ideas like abolishing that hateful NI supplement that Sunak had created. What has Reeves ever done that's positive? Besides what she's now u-turned on.
That NI supplement was the best way to fund social care longer term
Far from it.
Why should only salaried incomes be paying for social care?
Income tax would be a better way to pay for it, 'all in it together'.
Or if you want payments for social care to protect people's inheritances, then do that from inheritance tax.
No reason to only tax people working for a living.
Income tax is a tax, as is inheritance tax (and people already have to sell their homes to pay for residential care).
NI should fund social care and be ringfenced for that though you could extend NI for social care to those retired but not yet in care homes
NI is a tax like any other, it is not hypothecated and hasn't been for almost 30 years.
Indeed, and it was always a tax even when it was hypothecated.
Nope, it was set up as an insurance to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and some healthcare only and should always have been ringfenced just for that
Nope, it was set up as a tax and called insurance.
It was always a tax, the name is irrelevant.
Using your logic we could merge NI and Income Tax as I advocate, keep the criterion for eligibility of the tax as Income Tax is set by today (so all income is covered equally not just wages), but call the revised tax "National Insurance" . . . then claim tax has been abolished.
No as you can't ringfence the army, the police, schools, transport funding etc.
You do realise income tax was originally set up to fund the army in the Napoleonic Wars?
You can't ringfence healthcare or social care or other universal benefits you want funding by the tax called national insurance either.
Yes you can, most OECD nations fund healthcare via social insurance or in the US private healthcare not tax.
Japan etc fund social care via insurance
If you want to fund social care, or healthcare, via insurance then all the more reason to abolish NI and get people to pay for actual insurance.
Instead NI is a tax and the NHS/care is universally available regardless of whether you've ever paid NI or not.
Then you end up with the US problem where mainly private health insurance funded healthcare works for the rich but leaves many middle income and lower income earners unable to afford healthcare if they cannot qualify for Medicaid and are too young for Medicare.
Which is why most OECD nations fund it via government run national health insurance programmes
Indeed, that is the problem with funding it by actual insurance, instead of a tax like we have.
NI is not health insurance, if it were the NHS would be ringfenced only to those who pay for it. Its a tax, no more, no less.
The opposite, funding healthcare just by tax leads to the massive bureaucratic state entity that is our NHS.
As I said state healthcare should be ringfenced so only those who pay into it via national health insurance get it like most OECD nations do with tax only topping it up for the poorest who could not otherwise afford healthcare
So you accept now that NI is merely a tax and agree with my proposal to abolish the tax called NI and you'd like to start again with an actual insurance policy?
We might be getting somewhere.
No, NI was sent up as an insurance for healthcare and unemployment and state pensions and should be ringfenced again for that
There are consequences for ringfencing: like, what happens if the National Insurance fund is unable to meet its obligations?
Comments
Is this the most ludicrous thing ever claimed that could happen? 💩
Spencer Hakimian
@SpencerHakimian
Leaving aside the politics of it all for just one moment.
33% of California’s labor force are immigrants.
It’s closer to 50% in Los Angeles. It’s estimated that 10-20% of LA’s workforce is illegal. And that’s a very conservative estimate.
That means that 5-10% of Los Angeles entire labor force is illegal and could be deported by ICE at any moment.
Could you imagine if 10% of the workforce of the 2nd largest economy in the country is deported over the next few weeks?
The sheer amount of economic chaos that it would cause.
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1932135106581319990
#pbfreespeech
https://www.britishwildlife.com/article/article-volume-32-number-6-page-467-468/
It used to have a line of cashiers at the end, all chatting happily to each other, then offering a smile and beckoning you to come pay. Warm human activity
They've just been replaced by four automatic tills. I hate it. I only now realise that one reason I enjoyed going in there was BECAUSE of that tiny human interaction, the chat, the smiles, the "Thankyou so much" - and maybe a joke, a shared complaint about the weather, a roll of eyes about Camden
So four nice people have lost a job, and slowly the world atomises even further, and the city becomes a tiny bit lonelier
Weirdly affecting
It boils down to: we can't enforce our own laws because of the economic pain of doing so.
(I realise the tweet was just stating facts rather than drawing conclusions, but the inference is obvious).
All is connected. Which is the problem.
People are typically more astute about these things than politicians give them credit for. It requires some great communicators (political communicators have been sorely lacking in politics of late) and it requires someone to sell their end vision, but it is not inconceivable that the public can be persuaded of the need for meaningful reform, including the best way that our money is spent.
It is also about addressing public priorities. I think Reform are forgiven an awful lot at the moment because they fundamentally are speaking for a large chunk of the voting public on immigration in a way other parties haven’t.
Well, a moderately sized old trout.
We might be getting somewhere.
Free school meals for all school children is the california referendum
It should be Free school meals for all school children and we will raise your tax by 1% to pay for it
Maybe it's just age. Or maybe there really was something about the old set up, that line of smiling faces, the human voices, the nod of recognition, the tepid jokes. A human putting stuff in a bag, sending you off with another smile, then they all start chatting again
It's more like - if a pub replaced all its staff with robots. That's what it feels like
Hmm....
The benefits are set up as benefits. Not ringfenced to those who pay for it.
In no way is it an insurance. Its tax and spend, no different to if it were called Income Tax.
FFS.
America was built by wave after wave of migrants. Many or even mostly economic migrants.
Trump himself has a Scottish western isle mother and a German grandfather.
Our problem is parties and its all of them promise goodies but never mention how they will be paid for. I think if a party stood saying this is where your tax goes currently....this is what we want to do. This is the extra tax you will need to pay....
Well yes they wouldn't get voted for next election.....but I think it is worth doing election after election purely so people start to realise all that spending comes with a cost
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1932100904167321835
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War
Or worse, get stuck behind someone who is enjoying a good gab with the cashier while I'm stood there waiting for them to bugger off, long after their shopping has been scanned.
NEW: We are suing Donald Trump.
This is a manufactured crisis. He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.
The illegal order he signed could allow him to send the military into ANY STATE HE WISHES.
Every governor -- red or blue -- should reject this outrageous overreach.
There’s a lot of hyperbole out there. This isn’t that.
This is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism that threatens the foundation of our republic.
We cannot let it stand.
https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1932147258033934643
But the Whole Foods set up in Camden was different to normal check outs. They were all in a line behind one counter, and smiled at each customer to invite them to pay. A small but significant interaction. You got to know the faces, they got to know you
So it was much more like a pub where you go to a bar and smile at the bargirl or boy and she nods Hello and gets your drink. Imagine if you went into your local and found that all the bar staff had been replaced by automatic robot drink dispensers
That is not an argument against immigration control, in the modern world.
For a start we know approximately how many people are undocumented, through the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues licenses to both citizens and non-citizens.
In total, there are 1.2 million people in California with AB 60 licenses - i.e. those issued to people without proper paperwork. Now not all illegal immigrants will have licenses: some will drive illegally, and some will rely on their friends to get them to and from their place of employment. But AB 60 people are almost certainly the ones who are in employment. And even if we double the number, we only get to 6% of the population of California.
Now, it's possible that Los Angeles is much worse than (for example) San Francisco and the Bay Area. But I'd be surprised.
It's also worth remembering that the jobs with the highest proportion of undocumented workers are in the countryside. Essentially everyone who works picking fruit and vegtables in the Central Valley are undocumented. The places with the highest proportion of undocumented are often the places you'd least expect them.
Undocumented workers in Los Angeles are very heavily concentrated in two areas: construction and domestic help. (With a side helping of food service for independent contractors.) Basically, areas where record keeping is... limited.
Other parts of the economy - particularly the highly unionized entertainment industry - have essentially zero penetration of undocumented workers.
A massively arduous trek across Arabia, South Asia, East Asia, the Bering Strait, and North America?
Or a comparatively leisurely oceanic crossing from, say, Guinea, to Brazil?
We had a cost cutting exercise and told him he was being laid off. It was always difficult to tell if he was understanding.
He kept coming in. So we kept paying him.
I’ve always been happy with that choice.
Medicines, pharmaceuticals and “family planning”: automatic tills
Busy supermarket: automatic tills (but they do need to get better at approving alcohol)
Coffee shop: most people prefer a barista
Pub: human
Busy Thursday evening city pub or noisy club: automated vending would be great
Fast food: auto tills
Fancy resto: human
A bit like Airbnbs with key safes and codes vs hotels with front desk staff and concierge. Depends on mood and level of sociability.
So the 2 aren't entirely unlinked.
The prevalence of illegals for home help in America, often without any security and facing the risk of deportation if they step out of line, is something that makes me feel rather uncomfortable. Seems very much akin to seeking to reinvent a modern form of indentured servitude or slavery.
Reads a bit like a trigger warning.
https://x.com/edwest/status/1932100076559884414?s=61
In fact, if I want to get around Los Angeles' $76k minimum salary and requirement to provide health insurance, the easiest way to to hire an undocumented migrant.
The ICE sweeps never target the employers of undocumented workers, and so the incentive for firms to keep hiring them is still there. And how many undocumented workers can ICE deport anyway? Even if they managed 1 million a year (which is something like 5 migrants per ICE employee per day), it would barely scratch the surface.
Unless the US is able to stop the massive demand for undocumented labour, then it will keep coming because what's the chance you will get apprehended? And even if you get apprehended, what's the downside? The worst possible outcome is that you get sent back to Hondurus, which is where you started from.
Where I often stop there's a choice of 2 places to get a coffee opposite each other.
Costa Coffee - where you can get a Costa Flat White or Latte for £4
Tesco's with a Costa Coffee machine - where you can get a Costa Flat White or Latte, plus a meal, plus a snack, for £3.50
Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all."
No, the pay is not that good. But as far as I know there has never been a strike by the Union of Travel Writers, in the entire history of the profession. What would they put on their placards? "Down with Free Five Star Hotels!", "No More Ayurvedic Massages in the Seychelles!". And what bits of the job would they refuse to do? Would they operate a go-slow on luxury safaris?
There is an element of Boris there - a bullish determination that isn't put off by others telling him things are impossible - because things are often impossible till they aren't.
With Boris however, he was into Garden Bridges, Northern Ireland bridges, Island airports etc. I think Farage's ambitions are somewhat more grounded (in the recent past) and more achievable - so let's see.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1932140728408486108
Take That, Joy Division, New Order and now The BRITs.
Great to see Manchester’s music legacy continue as they take centre stage and host the BRIT Awards for the very first time.
One PB obsession I've never gotten into is the way it attract so many rail fans.
Early Saturday morning in a supermarket with a trolleyful of food (I'm old school, I still do a big shop) and it's irritating when there's 8 self-checkouts with 3 folk supporting them and only one proper conveyor belt checkout.
@atrupar.com
Q: What crimes has Gavin Newsom committed?
TRUMP: I think his primary crime is running for governor, because he's done such a bad job
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lr74d2ss3d2h
I prefer to chat to a person, however cursory, and the more items you have, the more chance that the machine presents you with some annoying mishap or misidentification.
But I’d still rather chat with the checkout operator in Waitrose.
Errr, because black pepper and white pepper are two very different things and those are their names?
Some would rather sit on the roof than in proximity to their fellow travellers.
It is also ludicrous nonsense
I know you specialise in winding people up on here to amuse yourself but do you ever wonder if people like this are serious, or just genuinely taking the piss? Would be amusing if she does really think this, but knows it will achieve the very effect it’s having on PB.
The sun will wash out the greys.
Breaking: A full Marine battalion, or around 500 Marines, based out of Twentynine Palms in California have been mobilized to respond to protests in LA, sources tell me and
@halbritz
Hegseth had put them on prepare to deploy orders over the weekend
https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1932161335678402656
We had a couple of weeks of lovely weather, then just before the Half-Term Holdays/May Bank Holday weekend it started raining and it hasn't stopped since.
The 1911 NI Act created National Insurance to provide health insurance and time limited unemployment benefits, funded by contributions from employers and workers with a small contribution from employers