UC was introduced incrementally; some would have been transferred from predecessor schemes.
The graph scale on the y axis has been deliberately chosen to make it look provocative. If the scale started at zero it wouldn't be remarkable at all. (My libdem view...)
It'd still be pretty remarkable, if it were actually true. New immigrants aren't entitled to UC so it's not related to recent immigration.
"Foreign Nationals" will include plenty who are fully entitled to be here, and have been here for decades.
What a stupid point. Do you think there are people receiving Universal Credit who are not entitled to be here?
It depends on the level of successful identity fraud, which we don't know. We did used to get a monthly update on dodgy foreign ID documents, many of which were apparently legit ID cards from EU countries. Apparently the reason we won't let EU citizens come to the UK on their ID cards is because they are easily forged.
And I met a few Romanians who I suspected were really Moldovan, or even Ukrainian although that's not an issue at the moment.
Have we covered the new £650m bribe to get users to buy new small electric cars
You can use the £3750 for a bicycle or a bus pass instead, right?!
This is the trouble with EV policy - it needs to be equitable, and it needs to push the door open for people who don't have drives. I'd much rather they spent it on buying e-buses, on on-street chargers, or a similar grant for e-bikes (or even scooters).
For richer people EVs already make financial sense.
Indeed, and what about subsidising second-hand cars for those unable to afford a new one?
The government needs 28% of new car sales to be EVs by December for this years target to be hit. It’s currently 22%
I believe that’s all that matters here trying to get the next few years’ targets hit
Well, improving the secondhand market would encourage people to buy new.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
A good example would be the Thames Water director telling the Commons committee that their refinancing investors insisted on their director bonuses being paid as a condition of the refinancing.
That could well be true.
The phenomenon of Remuneration Committees recommending insane executive rewards is well known. The fact that such committees are always made up of executives…
Picture a circle of monkeys. Each scratches the back of their right hand neighbour.
It's not. They've returned to the Commons and admitted as much.
I take it they handed back the bonuses, of course?
[Reminder: Montague told the committee that large bonuses for senior bosses which were to be paid from an emergency £3bn loan were insisted upon by creditors. We then reported that sources and court documents suggest the bonuses were agreed to by the creditors but not necessarily proposed by them.]
Carmichael says Thames have since provided “significant amounts of information”, which he thinks could have been handed over earlier if the company was committed to transparency.
He then accuses Thames of “quite a bit of gameplaying”, saying the committee only recieved a list of its senior creditors at 5.20pm yesterday, and pointing out that its annual report has been filed today, the last possible day..
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
A good example would be the Thames Water director telling the Commons committee that their refinancing investors insisted on their director bonuses being paid as a condition of the refinancing.
That could well be true.
The phenomenon of Remuneration Committees recommending insane executive rewards is well known. The fact that such committees are always made up of executives…
Picture a circle of monkeys. Each scratches the back of their right hand neighbour.
It's not. They've returned to the Commons and admitted as much.
I take it they handed back the bonuses, of course?
[Reminder: Montague told the committee that large bonuses for senior bosses which were to be paid from an emergency £3bn loan were insisted upon by creditors. We then reported that sources and court documents suggest the bonuses were agreed to by the creditors but not necessarily proposed by them.]
Carmichael says Thames have since provided “significant amounts of information”, which he thinks could have been handed over earlier if the company was committed to transparency.
He then accuses Thames of “quite a bit of gameplaying”, saying the committee only recieved a list of its senior creditors at 5.20pm yesterday, and pointing out that its annual report has been filed today, the last possible day..
The fun continues. ...During the select committee hearing, Ian Pearson, a former Labour minister who now chairs the remuneration committee at Thames, gave a novel explanation. He said:
“We all have husbands and wives back at home who ask questions, why don’t you go and work for somebody else that will pay you more”.
The bonuses appear to have been constructed to get around environment secretary Steve Reed’s water (special measures) act. This is because the act bans specifically performance related bonuses to the CEO and CFO of a company. These are retention payments, paid regardless of employee performance.
Thames says it can still pay these out, though they are currently on pause...
Costly in terms of 20,000 lives multiplied by family size.
Our government's main concern was to hush it up: Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted a super injunction that had been sought by the government.
Not unusually, The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details...
Cybersecurity, who gives a damn?
Sky suggesting compensation may eventually cost £7 billion
No doubt lessons will have been learned, and most will have died before the compensation payments are made.
I call bullshit - and am open to correction.
Sky did not say "£7 billion cost for compensation"; they call it the estimated "cost of the mistake" (whatever that means).
And there's no indication where that number comes from or their working. We have:
"The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families.
The total cost of the mistake has been estimated at around £7bn."
and for a former case we have 265 victims, £4k each compensation, and a fine of £350k, giving 265 * 4000 + £350k = £1.41 million, or a cost of these charges being we have a cost of £5320 per victim. Times 20k this time that is £106.4 million.
I think Sky have asked an Arts Graduate to do the Maths, who has picked 2 of the big numbers at random £350k and 20,000, and multiplied them to get £7bn as their "estimate".
What on earth is the point of "fining" the MoD ? I suppose if G4S or Serco has stuffed up, but the MoD would just be a money roundabout between the MoD and the treasury.
I got all excited then I saw @findoutnowUK and then I got less excited.
But compare like with like. Recently Findoutmadstuff have recorded Reform coming off their highs
This shows them right back at the top end of their polling. Mid 30s. Gamechanging levels of support
I did say at the time the Labour revival would tee up claims by Goodwin of an even bigger Reform revival.*
* I am not dissing a BPC registered polling genius by the way. To be clear.
Goodwin today is attacking entryists into Reform from the old dispensation Tories like Berry, on the basis that they won't be with the low tax, small state, anti welfare agenda. He overlooks the fact, which is as plain as it is possible to be, that Reform's voters are also large state, large welfare/pensions/NHS/free stuff supporters too. It is plain that Farage has spotted this obvious truth. I don't think Goodwin is quite with the programme.
Farage wants to copy Trump, so lie to the voters who want free stuff while enacting a low tax, small state (apart from ICE), anti-welfare agenda.
Why is the whole masterchef, Greg, John Torode story such huge news? As I don’t watch Masterchef am I missing a huge cultural moment like the first Impressionists exhibition?
From what I’ve heard on the radio of the Torode story calls for his resignation would be an injustice.
It appears that 7-8 years ago he made a perceived racist remark. The accuser says it was not malicious and he apologised immediately when challenged. Torode says he has no recollection of the incident.
Assuming the accusation is correct it seems like offence was caused, apologies were made and accepted and everyone moved on with their lives. What is the purpose of digging it up 8 years later?
How can people feel better about themselves without burning a witch every day?
I believe the PC term is "conflagrating a female-identifying occult practitioner"
You have been cancelled for the disgusting term “occult practitioner”
The correct term is “Wiccan faith practitioner”
Please report to Martyrs Memorial, Oxford, for public involuntary cremation.
Wicca is just one branch of neo paganism and has only existed since around 1956 being spun out of whole cloth by a civil servant called Gerald Gardiner. Real paganism is much older, predating christianity in most countries
'Paganism' is a subjective generic description, arising from a perspective which distinguishes in kind between 'my religion' and the other inferior ones generally described as 'pagan'. It has no usefulness outside rhetoric and made up modern practices.
Costly in terms of 20,000 lives multiplied by family size.
Our government's main concern was to hush it up: Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted a super injunction that had been sought by the government.
Not unusually, The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details...
Cybersecurity, who gives a damn?
Sky suggesting compensation may eventually cost £7 billion
No doubt lessons will have been learned, and most will have died before the compensation payments are made.
I call bullshit - and am open to correction.
Sky did not say "£7 billion cost for compensation"; they call it the estimated "cost of the mistake" (whatever that means).
And there's no indication where that number comes from or their working. We have:
"The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families.
The total cost of the mistake has been estimated at around £7bn."
and for a former case we have 265 victims, £4k each compensation, and a fine of £350k, giving 265 * 4000 + £350k = £1.41 million, or a cost of these charges being we have a cost of £5320 per victim. Times 20k this time that is £106.4 million.
I think Sky have asked an Arts Graduate to do the Maths, who has picked 2 of the big numbers at random £350k and 20,000, and multiplied them to get £7bn as their "estimate".
What on earth is the point of "fining" the MoD ? I suppose if G4S or Serco has stuffed up, but the MoD would just be a money roundabout between the MoD and the treasury.
In the Goode Olde Dayz, someone would have fallen on his sword. Literally.
These days, even firing people above a certain level is Not The Done Thing.
The only punishment left is reducing their budget.
I intend introducing a rigorous, on the spot, personnel review, as part of my UnDictatorship
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
A good example would be the Thames Water director telling the Commons committee that their refinancing investors insisted on their director bonuses being paid as a condition of the refinancing.
That could well be true.
The phenomenon of Remuneration Committees recommending insane executive rewards is well known. The fact that such committees are always made up of executives…
Picture a circle of monkeys. Each scratches the back of their right hand neighbour.
Yes, it's like in government efficiency drives, where it's almost never the management that gets laid off or consultants that get cut.
Of course it's a pure coincidence that it's always management that oversees those drives and consultants that design them.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
What a load of shite. We Brexited partly because europhiles and Remainers told the British voters lie after lie after lie, for fifty years, about the EEC/EU. "It's just a tidying up exercise." "We promise you a referendum". "The Lisbon Treaty is not the Constitution". On and on
And in the end all those lies exploded in their faces, with Brexit
Good
Kinabalu's version is considerably more interesting than your outing for your favourite hobbyhorse.
I suppose his brief for the article is to rail against lefties and remainers.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It’s ludicrous to be firing someone over one alleged racist joke who then apologised . That should be the end of the matter .
OTOH I can't believe the BBC got Wallace involved with the latest Masterchef series, I know they'll have to pay him salary till the allegations are proven (or not) one way or the other but surely sticking him on paid leave and getting say Galetti in his place to do the regular series would have been a prudent move.
The chemistry of the show needs an Everyman character like Wallace. NOT a pro chef but someone good on camera and can be funny and puts people at ease (this is not a comment on whatever he did or didn’t do off camera)
I’ve heard from people who work on the show that he is not just good at this but crucially good. The two chefs are lofty and superior, Wallace is a pivot between them and the contestants and the audience, Wallace enjoys food but as an amateur
What you’re saying is like @Roger saying “oh just find a funny guy, he will replace Jeremy Clarkson, that’s Top Gear sorted”
Gregg Wallace is not a truly big talent like Clarkson but he’s definitely a talent
The BBC need someone like him but not him
Paddy McGuiness springs to mind. Or a real foodie Ed Gamble.
Costly in terms of 20,000 lives multiplied by family size.
Our government's main concern was to hush it up: Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted a super injunction that had been sought by the government.
Not unusually, The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details...
Cybersecurity, who gives a damn?
Sky suggesting compensation may eventually cost £7 billion
No doubt lessons will have been learned, and most will have died before the compensation payments are made.
I call bullshit - and am open to correction.
Sky did not say "£7 billion cost for compensation"; they call it the estimated "cost of the mistake" (whatever that means).
And there's no indication where that number comes from or their working. We have:
"The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families.
The total cost of the mistake has been estimated at around £7bn."
and for a former case we have 265 victims, £4k each compensation, and a fine of £350k, giving 265 * 4000 + £350k = £1.41 million, or a cost of these charges being we have a cost of £5320 per victim. Times 20k this time that is £106.4 million.
I think Sky have asked an Arts Graduate to do the Maths, who has picked 2 of the big numbers at random £350k and 20,000, and multiplied them to get £7bn as their "estimate".
What on earth is the point of "fining" the MoD ? I suppose if G4S or Serco has stuffed up, but the MoD would just be a money roundabout between the MoD and the treasury.
Great way of increasing defence budget to 5% of GDP. Give MoD 5%, then fine 60% of that back
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
UC was introduced incrementally; some would have been transferred from predecessor schemes.
When they say "foreign nationals", how do they classify people with dual nationalities?
It's from the DWP. Dual nationals (inc. those with Irish citizenship) would be under the "right to abode" category and not included in the foreign nationals number.
Beijing just updated its export control list—battery cathode material prep tech is now restricted, along with new limits on lithium extraction and refining. That includes tech used to make lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, and lithium alloys. https://x.com/wallstengine/status/1945041034393870430
As Trump continues to loosen tech export restrictions on China, they move in the other direction.
CHINA 🇨🇳 ADDS BATTERY TECH TO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS
Beijing just updated its export control list—battery cathode material prep tech is now restricted, along with new limits on lithium extraction and refining. That includes tech used to make lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, and lithium alloys. https://x.com/wallstengine/status/1945041034393870430
I don't see what the State has got to do with that, in terms of Whitehall and Parliament, or what Reform would do about it.
I'm sure that Reform are likely to be in favour of schools having strong powers of discipline, in common with the Westminster consensus for decades, and how are they going to stop schools from using those powers arbitrarily and in ways that they disapprove of?
We can't expect central government to be in charge of everything. This is a matter for the board of governors - ooops, I guess those are powerless in an age of academy chains run by unaccountable private companies.
No new UK sites on the UNESCO Heritage list. We are foolishly bad at selling ourselves
I have no idea why Oxford and Cambridge aren't individually on the list. Also the Sandstone Churches of Herefordshire, Avebury, Salisbury Cathedral, the Wool Towns of Suffolk and Norfolk, Tower Bridge, Tintern, my flat, and Victorian Glasgow
Beijing just updated its export control list—battery cathode material prep tech is now restricted, along with new limits on lithium extraction and refining. That includes tech used to make lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, and lithium alloys. https://x.com/wallstengine/status/1945041034393870430
TACO has FAFOed.
TACO has sacked Elon who at least understood the importance of supply chains.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
That it's his main legacy is maybe punishment enough. Because he knows it is.
And in case it's been missed, a BoJo classic, "no border in the Irish Sea".
Costly in terms of 20,000 lives multiplied by family size.
Our government's main concern was to hush it up: Details about the blunder can finally be made public after a judge lifted a super injunction that had been sought by the government.
Not unusually, The disaster is thought to have been triggered by the careless handling of an email that contained a list of the names and other details...
Cybersecurity, who gives a damn?
Sky suggesting compensation may eventually cost £7 billion
No doubt lessons will have been learned, and most will have died before the compensation payments are made.
I call bullshit - and am open to correction.
Sky did not say "£7 billion cost for compensation"; they call it the estimated "cost of the mistake" (whatever that means).
And there's no indication where that number comes from or their working. We have:
"The blunder exposed the personal information of close to 20,000 individuals, endangering them and their families.
The total cost of the mistake has been estimated at around £7bn."
and for a former case we have 265 victims, £4k each compensation, and a fine of £350k, giving 265 * 4000 + £350k = £1.41 million, or a cost of these charges being we have a cost of £5320 per victim. Times 20k this time that is £106.4 million.
I think Sky have asked an Arts Graduate to do the Maths, who has picked 2 of the big numbers at random £350k and 20,000, and multiplied them to get £7bn as their "estimate".
What on earth is the point of "fining" the MoD ? I suppose if G4S or Serco has stuffed up, but the MoD would just be a money roundabout between the MoD and the treasury.
In the Goode Olde Dayz, someone would have fallen on his sword. Literally.
These days, even firing people above a certain level is Not The Done Thing.
The only punishment left is reducing their budget.
I intend introducing a rigorous, on the spot, personnel review, as part of my UnDictatorship
On R4 WATO the presenter read out the text of the govt email that will be sent to afghans at risk verbatim... WTAF! Is there anyone with a functioning brain left in the BBC?
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
That it's his main legacy is maybe punishment enough. Because he knows it is.
And in case it's been missed, a BoJo classic, "no border in the Irish Sea".
And of course Clinton: ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman,"
Ah. I have discovered why the UK is weirdly bad at getting UNESCO listing
Have a guess
Yes. It's because the selfless UK government is now committed to helping OTHER countries - small nations, etc - get their sites listed, and is no longer focused on selling the UK. Presumably we are also paying for this
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
A good example would be the Thames Water director telling the Commons committee that their refinancing investors insisted on their director bonuses being paid as a condition of the refinancing.
That could well be true.
The phenomenon of Remuneration Committees recommending insane executive rewards is well known. The fact that such committees are always made up of executives…
Picture a circle of monkeys. Each scratches the back of their right hand neighbour.
Yes, it's like in government efficiency drives, where it's almost never the management that gets laid off or consultants that get cut.
Of course it's a pure coincidence that it's always management that oversees those drives and consultants that design them.
Actually, I think it's slightly different. Compensation for executives at public companies (which effectively sets the benchmark for senior executive compensation throughout the private sector) is almost always done in consultation with major shareholders.
30 years ago when I started in finance, fund managers were - by and large - not particularly well paid. If you wanted to make big money, you worked for an investment bank on the Sell Side. The fund managers who looked after the bulk of public equities worked for large insurance companies, mutuals and the like, and weren't enormously well paid. (Of course, this is all relative, but fairly junior Sell Side people in 1995 could be earning 250k/year, while very few people on the Buy Side would be earning those sums.)
The rise of hedge funds, and small competitive asset managers fighting it out over performance, has meant that the Buy Side now pays at least as well as the Sell Side. There are now a lot of fund managers taking home 1m+.
And so the people who are deciding the salaries of the executives at -say- Vodafone, look at their own compensation packages and thing "well, if I'm worth [x], then this guy running this big company has to be worth at least [x] too".
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
UC was introduced incrementally; some would have been transferred from predecessor schemes.
The graph scale on the y axis has been deliberately chosen to make it look provocative. If the scale started at zero it wouldn't be remarkable at all. (My libdem view...)
It'd still be pretty remarkable, if it were actually true. New immigrants aren't entitled to UC so it's not related to recent immigration.
"Foreign Nationals" will include plenty who are fully entitled to be here, and have been here for decades.
Just a shit-stirrer, stirring shit imo.
Like Goodwin's stats implying a big scary we-are-about-to-be-replaced fear, defining Nigel Farage's children by his German wife as not "White British".
I receive UC, and I'm a foreign national, so I'd be in the figures. I'm also a British citizen from birth.
Why is the whole masterchef, Greg, John Torode story such huge news? As I don’t watch Masterchef am I missing a huge cultural moment like the first Impressionists exhibition?
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Then we should invade France and seize UNESCO and re-establish it in the Newent with special new British criteria, a bit like the way the French seized the Pope and put him in Avignon
Already, whenever I pass through the Newent, I always think "OMG it is like an English Avignon"
UC was introduced incrementally; some would have been transferred from predecessor schemes.
The graph scale on the y axis has been deliberately chosen to make it look provocative. If the scale started at zero it wouldn't be remarkable at all. (My libdem view...)
It'd still be pretty remarkable, if it were actually true. New immigrants aren't entitled to UC so it's not related to recent immigration.
"Foreign Nationals" will include plenty who are fully entitled to be here, and have been here for decades.
Just a shit-stirrer, stirring shit imo.
Like Goodwin's stats implying a big scary we-are-about-to-be-replaced fear, defining Nigel Farage's children by his German wife as not "White British".
I receive UC, and I'm a foreign national, so I'd be in the figures. I'm also a British citizen from birth.
I doubt you will be in the figures, you will have applied as a British citizen so I don't think it will have recorded your other nationality.
Why is the whole masterchef, Greg, John Torode story such huge news? As I don’t watch Masterchef am I missing a huge cultural moment like the first Impressionists exhibition?
The Sun front page is “The End of Torode”
Feel like someone has had that headline ready to go for a long time. A bit like Jeremy in Peep Show and his plan to sell the headline "Three-o Walcott".
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
Technically "no intention of" is a non-denial denial. It actually means "I might". I have no intention of going to the pub tonight but I might get back from my run and decide I'm thirsty.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
UC was introduced incrementally; some would have been transferred from predecessor schemes.
The graph scale on the y axis has been deliberately chosen to make it look provocative. If the scale started at zero it wouldn't be remarkable at all. (My libdem view...)
It'd still be pretty remarkable, if it were actually true. New immigrants aren't entitled to UC so it's not related to recent immigration.
"Foreign Nationals" will include plenty who are fully entitled to be here, and have been here for decades.
Just a shit-stirrer, stirring shit imo.
Like Goodwin's stats implying a big scary we-are-about-to-be-replaced fear, defining Nigel Farage's children by his German wife as not "White British".
I receive UC, and I'm a foreign national, so I'd be in the figures. I'm also a British citizen from birth.
No, you wouldn't. You would be in the UK citizen category.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
That was clearly a lie but also not of the same nature. Lying to induce support for a vote is different from lying about a second-order consequence of a result that - were the truth stated - might induce people to vote on a critical issue for a transient and unrelated consideration.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
That was clearly a lie but also not of the same nature. Lying to induce support for a vote is different from lying about a second-order consequence of a result that - were the truth stated - might induce people to vote on a critical issue for a transient and unrelated consideration.
Not even that imo. Cameron never envisaged the possibility of defeat.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
That was clearly a lie but also not of the same nature. Lying to induce support for a vote is different from lying about a second-order consequence of a result that - were the truth stated - might induce people to vote on a critical issue for a transient and unrelated consideration.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
Technically "no intention of" is a non-denial denial. It actually means "I might". I have no intention of going to the pub tonight but I might get back from my run and decide I'm thirsty.
I think that is somewhat Jesuitical. It was a lie he thought he had to tell because he did not want people voting leave just to get rid of him.
What about Rachel Reeves: " “We are never going to need a Budget like this again,” who said she would not increase taxes again before the end of this parliament cycle.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
That was clearly a lie but also not of the same nature. Lying to induce support for a vote is different from lying about a second-order consequence of a result that - were the truth stated - might induce people to vote on a critical issue for a transient and unrelated consideration.
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
I agree that the statement from Brown is not a lie.
But, I do think that misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, can amount to a lie.
It can get as close as makes no difference, yes.
For me, the clearest example of lying remains the dodgy dossier produced to "prove" that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That really should have been the end of Blair's career.
How about Cammo saying that he had no intention of resigning if we voted leave?
Technically "no intention of" is a non-denial denial. It actually means "I might". I have no intention of going to the pub tonight but I might get back from my run and decide I'm thirsty.
I think that is somewhat Jesuitical. It was a lie he thought he had to tell because he did not want people voting leave just to get rid of him.
What about Rachel Reeves: " “We are never going to need a Budget like this again,” who said she would not increase taxes again before the end of this parliament cycle.
Or at least until the following year.
Well, she is a bit stupid to make a prediction based on events not happening. Since then they have lost their welfare reforms, thus costing more money and needing more tax.
It's a bit like people during the Brexit referendum saying they wanted a certain sort of Brexit deal. Actually, that was always out of our hands as it always depended on the result of negotiations.
I am not sure if it is a lie if you make an intention known based on some future event happening/not happening, and are proved wrong.
It's an academy, apparently, so hardly 'the state', on any level. If it is as presented, then it's a celebration of academies' freedom to be complete Collymores.
One of those stories where I can't help feeling there's more to it, which may one day come out. Although I note the school has apparently apologised, from the story.
Schools have all kinds of interesting non-uniform day rules. My kids' school bans (pro team) football kits - wearing your local youth team kit is fine, as are kits from other sports. But they do make that clear.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
The R&A and the Old Course are even less deserving than the town centre. I mean, it's just a golf course with an unremarkable Victorian clubhouse by the first tee. Of course it is the oldest golf course in the world, but I'd say golf is a fairly minor facet of human civilization, and among the small subset of the world that gives a shit about golf St Andrews already has all the recognition it needs.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
The R&A and the Old Course are even less deserving than the town centre. I mean, it's just a golf course with an unremarkable Victorian clubhouse by the first tee. Of course it is the oldest golf course in the world, but I'd say golf is a fairly minor facet of human civilization, and among the small subset of the world that gives a shit about golf St Andrews already has all the recognition it needs.
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1945113498356248724?s=19 Government approval hits a new low of 12%. Sunak had 3 x 11%, all in the first handful of weeks after the Truss debacle, so the government are now running at Sunak nadir levels of approval and approaching the Truss and May just before resignation/Euro election 8% bottoms A year after a landslide this is an astronomic collapse of public support
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
The R&A and the Old Course are even less deserving than the town centre. I mean, it's just a golf course with an unremarkable Victorian clubhouse by the first tee. Of course it is the oldest golf course in the world, but I'd say golf is a fairly minor facet of human civilization, and among the small subset of the world that gives a shit about golf St Andrews already has all the recognition it needs.
I thought the oldest course was on the North (or South?) Inch in Perth (by some accounts).
Right. I have an unusual commission for Basalt Bliss Magazine
I have to do a quick history of Political Lying. What are the standout lies in politics for PBers in the last decade or two, or indeed in all of history?
Brexit produced some corkers, on both sides. Any others?
For me the number one lie has to be from Gordon Brown in 1997: "I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the future."
People are not doing this properly. That's a broken promise not a lie. Politics is full of broken promises. They are its base currency. It's also full of deliberate misrepresentations and devious misleading language. These are not lies. "Lie" loses its specific meaning if applied to all that sort of thing.
A lie is a statement on a serious matter offered seriously that is knowingly and unequivocably false as a matter of fact. They are quite rare in politics and in life generally. Or rather they were quite rare in politics. It's one of the most pernicious Trump effects that he's normalising lying. We're not there yet but it's the direction of travel.
A good example would be the Thames Water director telling the Commons committee that their refinancing investors insisted on their director bonuses being paid as a condition of the refinancing.
That could well be true.
The phenomenon of Remuneration Committees recommending insane executive rewards is well known. The fact that such committees are always made up of executives…
Picture a circle of monkeys. Each scratches the back of their right hand neighbour.
Yes, it's like in government efficiency drives, where it's almost never the management that gets laid off or consultants that get cut.
Of course it's a pure coincidence that it's always management that oversees those drives and consultants that design them.
Actually, I think it's slightly different. Compensation for executives at public companies (which effectively sets the benchmark for senior executive compensation throughout the private sector) is almost always done in consultation with major shareholders.
30 years ago when I started in finance, fund managers were - by and large - not particularly well paid. If you wanted to make big money, you worked for an investment bank on the Sell Side. The fund managers who looked after the bulk of public equities worked for large insurance companies, mutuals and the like, and weren't enormously well paid. (Of course, this is all relative, but fairly junior Sell Side people in 1995 could be earning 250k/year, while very few people on the Buy Side would be earning those sums.)
The rise of hedge funds, and small competitive asset managers fighting it out over performance, has meant that the Buy Side now pays at least as well as the Sell Side. There are now a lot of fund managers taking home 1m+.
And so the people who are deciding the salaries of the executives at -say- Vodafone, look at their own compensation packages and thing "well, if I'm worth [x], then this guy running this big company has to be worth at least [x] too".
Yes, I was "sellside" back then and "buyside" was rather looked down upon (although not by me I stress). The ultimate insult, absolute bottom of the pile, was "customer". That was a general term for counterparties you could rip off.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
The R&A and the Old Course are even less deserving than the town centre. I mean, it's just a golf course with an unremarkable Victorian clubhouse by the first tee. Of course it is the oldest golf course in the world, but I'd say golf is a fairly minor facet of human civilization, and among the small subset of the world that gives a shit about golf St Andrews already has all the recognition it needs.
I thought the oldest course was on the North (or South?) Inch in Perth (by some accounts).
Whatever it is, is certainly isn't St Andrews.
The earliest Opens were at Prestwick.
It is a contentious question but the Guinness book of Records awards it to St Andrews apparently.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
The R&A and the Old Course are even less deserving than the town centre. I mean, it's just a golf course with an unremarkable Victorian clubhouse by the first tee. Of course it is the oldest golf course in the world, but I'd say golf is a fairly minor facet of human civilization, and among the small subset of the world that gives a shit about golf St Andrews already has all the recognition it needs.
I thought the oldest course was on the North (or South?) Inch in Perth (by some accounts).
Whatever it is, is certainly isn't St Andrews.
The earliest Opens were at Prestwick.
Leith Links was the inspiration for St Andrews. Is UNESCO status good for house prices? Asking for a friend.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
I've given that a like.
The last thing St Andews needs is to become even more of a golf theme park. The golf industrial complex plus the university have squeezed most normal life out of the town.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
The R&A and the Old Course are even less deserving than the town centre. I mean, it's just a golf course with an unremarkable Victorian clubhouse by the first tee. Of course it is the oldest golf course in the world, but I'd say golf is a fairly minor facet of human civilization, and among the small subset of the world that gives a shit about golf St Andrews already has all the recognition it needs.
I thought the oldest course was on the North (or South?) Inch in Perth (by some accounts).
Whatever it is, is certainly isn't St Andrews.
The earliest Opens were at Prestwick.
It is a contentious question but the Guinness book of Records awards it to St Andrews apparently.
Perhaps they are going by "modern" 18 hole layout, although even that is a bit dubious.
I suppose it keeps all the tourists mostly in one place.
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
I've given that a like.
The last thing St Andews needs is to become even more of a golf theme park. The golf industrial complex plus the university have squeezed most normal life out of the town.
Washington Post "fact checker" Glenn Kessler describes his findings as "falsehoods", not "lies". I think he is right to do so, since we seldom have direct evidence of what a politician actually believes. (I am a little more willing than he to call a statement a lie -- but then I don't work for a news organization.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Kessler_(journalist)
Also Wimbledon, Lord's, Twickenham, and St Andrew's
UNESCO listing puts big restrictions on change and development which makes certain places reluctant to apply.
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Similarly, St Andrews is a pretty town with lots of history in a nice location but doesn't merit inclusion as a world heritage site.
I mean the golf club, hence I put it in with Lord's etc
The R&A and the Old Course are even less deserving than the town centre. I mean, it's just a golf course with an unremarkable Victorian clubhouse by the first tee. Of course it is the oldest golf course in the world, but I'd say golf is a fairly minor facet of human civilization, and among the small subset of the world that gives a shit about golf St Andrews already has all the recognition it needs.
I thought the oldest course was on the North (or South?) Inch in Perth (by some accounts).
Whatever it is, is certainly isn't St Andrews.
The earliest Opens were at Prestwick.
It is a contentious question but the Guinness book of Records awards it to St Andrews apparently.
Perhaps they are going by "modern" 18 hole layout, although even that is a bit dubious.
I suppose it keeps all the tourists mostly in one place.
Yeah. I consider myself an authority on St Andrews but not on golf.
I got all excited then I saw @findoutnowUK and then I got less excited.
But compare like with like. Recently Findoutmadstuff have recorded Reform coming off their highs
This shows them right back at the top end of their polling. Mid 30s. Gamechanging levels of support
I did say at the time the Labour revival would tee up claims by Goodwin of an even bigger Reform revival.*
* I am not dissing a BPC registered polling genius by the way. To be clear.
Goodwin today is attacking entryists into Reform from the old dispensation Tories like Berry, on the basis that they won't be with the low tax, small state, anti welfare agenda. He overlooks the fact, which is as plain as it is possible to be, that Reform's voters are also large state, large welfare/pensions/NHS/free stuff supporters too. It is plain that Farage has spotted this obvious truth. I don't think Goodwin is quite with the programme.
Farage wants to copy Trump, so lie to the voters who want free stuff while enacting a low tax, small state (apart from ICE), anti-welfare agenda.
That view is predicated on the assumption that there are rich people who want low taxes and don't need state handouts, and poor people who want high taxes (on others) and need state handouts. It's never been as simple as that, and a far more important distinction is now being drawn, between contributors to the state and takers. Contributors could be as modest as mininum wage or workers furious that their neighbours sleep or smoke weed all day and make more money than them, and takers could be former Heads of the Department of Public Prosecutions with special pensions that require an Act of Parliament.
I got all excited then I saw @findoutnowUK and then I got less excited.
But compare like with like. Recently Findoutmadstuff have recorded Reform coming off their highs
This shows them right back at the top end of their polling. Mid 30s. Gamechanging levels of support
I did say at the time the Labour revival would tee up claims by Goodwin of an even bigger Reform revival.*
* I am not dissing a BPC registered polling genius by the way. To be clear.
Goodwin today is attacking entryists into Reform from the old dispensation Tories like Berry, on the basis that they won't be with the low tax, small state, anti welfare agenda. He overlooks the fact, which is as plain as it is possible to be, that Reform's voters are also large state, large welfare/pensions/NHS/free stuff supporters too. It is plain that Farage has spotted this obvious truth. I don't think Goodwin is quite with the programme.
Farage wants to copy Trump, so lie to the voters who want free stuff while enacting a low tax, small state (apart from ICE), anti-welfare agenda.
That view is predicated on the assumption that there are rich people who want low taxes and don't need state handouts, and poor people who want high taxes (on others) and need state handouts. It's never been as simple as that, and a far more important distinction is now being drawn, between contributors to the state and takers. Contributors could be as modest as mininum wage or workers furious that their neighbours sleep or smoke weed all day and make more money than them, and takers could be former Heads of the Department of Public Prosecutions with special pensions that require an Act of Parliament.
Isn't the State the ultimate taker in some eyes. Have you read the Sovereign Individual?
I have just bought a second hand VW Polo petrol with 25k miles for approximately £12k. New cars (wether electric or not) are too expensive and I am a higher rate taxpayer. I am not sure how people afford them.
2 years ago I bought a Suzuki Swift petrol hybrid (self charging not plug in) for £13k, new from the showroom. List price was about £16k but I got them down to £13k.
I have just bought a second hand VW Polo petrol with 25k miles for approximately £12k. New cars (wether electric or not) are too expensive and I am a higher rate taxpayer. I am not sure how people afford them.
There’s this thing called a PCP contract, which cunningly hides how much it is actually costing.
Comments
And I met a few Romanians who I suspected were really Moldovan, or even Ukrainian although that's not an issue at the moment.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_of_Sèvres#British_denial
- The breaking of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
Other even bigger ones would be done by Hitler and Stalinhttps://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2025/jul/15/ftse-100-index-9000-point-record-thames-water-loss-mps-business-live-news-updates
...Carmichael says the recall was triggered by Montague telling the committee he had “mis-spoken” in the first hearing, which Carmichael says came to light after an inquiry from the Guardian.
[Reminder: Montague told the committee that large bonuses for senior bosses which were to be paid from an emergency £3bn loan were insisted upon by creditors. We then reported that sources and court documents suggest the bonuses were agreed to by the creditors but not necessarily proposed by them.]
Carmichael says Thames have since provided “significant amounts of information”, which he thinks could have been handed over earlier if the company was committed to transparency.
He then accuses Thames of “quite a bit of gameplaying”, saying the committee only recieved a list of its senior creditors at 5.20pm yesterday, and pointing out that its annual report has been filed today, the last possible day..
...During the select committee hearing, Ian Pearson, a former Labour minister who now chairs the remuneration committee at Thames, gave a novel explanation. He said:
“We all have husbands and wives back at home who ask questions, why don’t you go and work for somebody else that will pay you more”.
The bonuses appear to have been constructed to get around environment secretary Steve Reed’s water (special measures) act. This is because the act bans specifically performance related bonuses to the CEO and CFO of a company. These are retention payments, paid regardless of employee performance.
Thames says it can still pay these out, though they are currently on pause...
These days, even firing people above a certain level is Not The Done Thing.
The only punishment left is reducing their budget.
I intend introducing a rigorous, on the spot, personnel review, as part of my UnDictatorship
Of course it's a pure coincidence that it's always management that oversees those drives and consultants that design them.
He's well versed in potato products.
Mind you he remarried and to a lady. He became Plaid on Caerphilly Council. He's probably Reform now if he's still around.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/girl-12-kicked-out-lessons-32060543?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawLjMiFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHoTYoMN4yLa2mIy4QP1WhBdCWmcAVABW-pH1Mv3_Sw9wIG0vlbiJHMfebSK1_aem_GMIt64tH0HwsNTs19QC49w#Echobox=1752567763
Chinese firms rush to buy Nvidia AI chips as sales set to resume
https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-resume-h20-gpu-sales-china-2025-07-15/
CHINA 🇨🇳 ADDS BATTERY TECH TO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS
Beijing just updated its export control list—battery cathode material prep tech is now restricted, along with new limits on lithium extraction and refining. That includes tech used to make lithium carbonate, lithium hydroxide, and lithium alloys.
https://x.com/wallstengine/status/1945041034393870430
TACO has FAFOed.
I'm sure that Reform are likely to be in favour of schools having strong powers of discipline, in common with the Westminster consensus for decades, and how are they going to stop schools from using those powers arbitrarily and in ways that they disapprove of?
We can't expect central government to be in charge of everything. This is a matter for the board of governors - ooops, I guess those are powerless in an age of academy chains run by unaccountable private companies.
I have no idea why Oxford and Cambridge aren't individually on the list. Also the Sandstone Churches of Herefordshire, Avebury, Salisbury Cathedral, the Wool Towns of Suffolk and Norfolk, Tower Bridge, Tintern, my flat, and Victorian Glasgow
CTA - UK, Ireland, Right of Abode
And in case it's been missed, a BoJo classic, "no border in the Irish Sea".
WTAF! Is there anyone with a functioning brain left in the BBC?
Have a guess
Yes. It's because the selfless UK government is now committed to helping OTHER countries - small nations, etc - get their sites listed, and is no longer focused on selling the UK. Presumably we are also paying for this
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/unesco-world-heritage-sites-uk-tentative-list-review/outcome/government-response-to-the-uk-tentative-list-review
30 years ago when I started in finance, fund managers were - by and large - not particularly well paid. If you wanted to make big money, you worked for an investment bank on the Sell Side. The fund managers who looked after the bulk of public equities worked for large insurance companies, mutuals and the like, and weren't enormously well paid. (Of course, this is all relative, but fairly junior Sell Side people in 1995 could be earning 250k/year, while very few people on the Buy Side would be earning those sums.)
The rise of hedge funds, and small competitive asset managers fighting it out over performance, has meant that the Buy Side now pays at least as well as the Sell Side. There are now a lot of fund managers taking home 1m+.
And so the people who are deciding the salaries of the executives at -say- Vodafone, look at their own compensation packages and thing "well, if I'm worth [x], then this guy running this big company has to be worth at least [x] too".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gpfY2y-YdY
I seem to recall that Liverpool waterfront lost their UNESCO world heritage status because of development, development that was essential for the economy and people who actually live there rather than for tourists who want to see something unspoiled.
I would imagine it might be tricky to define the areas of Oxford and Cambridge that could be singled out without preventing say an amazing new vax lab being built in an area that works for the university.
Already, whenever I pass through the Newent, I always think "OMG it is like an English Avignon"
What about Rachel Reeves: " “We are never going to need a Budget like this again,” who said she would not increase taxes again before the end of this parliament cycle.
Or at least until the following year.
It's a bit like people during the Brexit referendum saying they wanted a certain sort of Brexit deal. Actually, that was always out of our hands as it always depended on the result of negotiations.
I am not sure if it is a lie if you make an intention known based on some future event happening/not happening, and are proved wrong.
One of those stories where I can't help feeling there's more to it, which may one day come out. Although I note the school has apparently apologised, from the story.
Schools have all kinds of interesting non-uniform day rules. My kids' school bans (pro team) football kits - wearing your local youth team kit is fine, as are kits from other sports. But they do make that clear.
Government approval hits a new low of 12%. Sunak had 3 x 11%, all in the first handful of weeks after the Truss debacle, so the government are now running at Sunak nadir levels of approval and approaching the Truss and May just before resignation/Euro election 8% bottoms
A year after a landslide this is an astronomic collapse of public support
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07d082jpkko
None named, sfaict although no doubt that will come soon. Probably none from the BBC boardroom, so if Lisa Nandy is reading this...
Whatever it is, is certainly isn't St Andrews.
The earliest Opens were at Prestwick.
"That's a rich price, isn't it?"
"It's ok. It's a customer "
NEW THREAD
I suppose it keeps all the tourists mostly in one place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Kessler_(journalist)