Skip to content

Why we need more 80s and 90s music in our lives – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,873
edited January 4 in General
Why we need more 80s and 90s music in our lives – politicalbetting.com

What can 40 years of song lyrics tell us about society?I analysed the lyrics of 1,600 pop songs going back to 1985. Our music appears to be getting gloomier, less future-looking and more self-obsessed1/6

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,207

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    I have to plead with some relatives to persist because they are frustrated by a) the difficulty seeing anyone and b) the hostility they will receive when they dare to try to see someone.

    I know those working in health are facing some really tough challenges but damn, the stereotype of the overly aggressive gatekeeper is real.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,207
    They can just make gloomy lyrics but set to really upbeat tunes, i love that and it gets praise as being deep.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,564
    FPT de-threaded: Because it's worth it.

    Either last year's Panto season is running late, or next year's is starting early.

    This is Barnet - just like the good old days of Brian Coleman. *

    The Barnet Conservative group leader moved house to Wales in 2022, and stayed on as a Councillor. He left the Blues for Reform UK in May/June 2024.

    He resigned from the Council on Dec 31st, leaving his residents unrepresented until elections in May, to .. er .. "spend more time with his family".

    What IS going on ? Could he not have left early enough to allow a By-election? Or stayed on for 5 months until the election, having stayed on for the previous 3 years?
    https://barnetpost.co.uk/2026/01/01/former-leader-slams-former-party-as-he-departs-council/

    * Don't say: "Oh shut up you odious little toad", or emulate The Winter's Tale Act III Scene III: "Coleman made an angry acceptance speech at the count in which he announced that "the king of bling is back" before storming out, accompanied by his mother."
    (Script: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Coleman)

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,033
    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,292
    edited January 4
    On the notion in the header that song lyrics are becoming more self-obsessed, I note that Joan Armatrading released Me Myself I in 1980.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,034
    edited January 4

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    That's nice rhetoric but in-work poverty increased significantly under the Conservatives, despite a strong record on employment, and is significantly higher than our counterparts elsewhere.

    So no, child poverty is not solved by getting people into work. You have to pay them properly too - the kind of wage that allows them to support a family, not make us a cheap cup of coffee.
    No, child poverty is absolutely solved by getting people into work. That's precisely how everyone else supports their families - by earning a wage. I agree benefits should provide a basic safety net; I do not agree they should subsidise lifestyles.

    Public policy should not be led by the nose by lobby groups like the Rowntree Foundation, nor major spending decisions made on the basis of moving hundreds of thousands of people above or below an arbitrary line on a spreadsheet and then declaring the problem "solved". They will continue to sit wasting away on low incomes with a limited lifestyle and their potential totally unrealised. That's absolutely mad, especially whilst we face one of the biggest geopolitical challenges of the century.

    I fundamentally disagree with you.
    FPT you can't really disagree with the maths though - if you have millions of people in-work but on low wages, poverty will be high. This is a particular and distinct problem for the UK compared to our peers.

    It's not so much that we are subsiding wages for out-of-work households - we are subsidying salaries for low-wage employers. The kind of employer that can provide cheap cups of coffee, or low supermarket prices.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 16,559
    We and us is being replaced by I amd me in chart music because solo artists are dominating the charts. I don't think there's been more than 1 #1 by a group rather than a solo artist in tge last ten years.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,033
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    That's nice rhetoric but in-work poverty increased significantly under the Conservatives, despite a strong record on employment, and is significantly higher than our counterparts elsewhere.

    So no, child poverty is not solved by getting people into work. You have to pay them properly too - the kind of wage that allows them to support a family, not make us a cheap cup of coffee.
    No, child poverty is absolutely solved by getting people into work. That's precisely how everyone else supports their families - by earning a wage. I agree benefits should provide a basic safety net; I do not agree they should subsidise lifestyles.

    Public policy should not be led by the nose by lobby groups like the Rowntree Foundation, nor major spending decisions made on the basis of moving hundreds of thousands of people above or below an arbitrary line on a spreadsheet and then declaring the problem "solved". They will continue to sit wasting away on low incomes with a limited lifestyle and their potential totally unrealised. That's absolutely mad, especially whilst we face one of the biggest geopolitical challenges of the century.

    I fundamentally disagree with you.
    FPT you can't really disagree with the maths though - if you have millions of people in-work but on low wages, poverty will be high.
    People in work have much higher incomes than those on benefits, as well as a career path.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,752

    Roger said:

    Off Topic but has there been any sighting or comment from the Chancellor since the announcement that the IHT Threshold was to be raised to £2.5 M. And what does her farmer hating husband think of it all ?

    In the entire history of male Chancellors, has there ever been coverage of what their wives thought about tax measures?
    A elegant reply.
    In the entire history of Male Chancellors was there ever a wife of the Chancellor who had such an unbelievable conflict of interest as Reeves's husband ?

    In the farming industry, and self-employment generally husband and wife are one unseparable unit. The idea that you do not see Reeves and her husband as the same says more about you than me.

    I notice no-one has answered the original question so assume she has not been heard of since Keir Starmer changed the threshold to save his skin when he is challenged in February.

    I do wonder if any change to the status as of 4 July 2024 will actually get through the house. Presumably there will be opposition amendments to deal with Farm Livestock and Deadstock valuation, index linking, non-conventional couples etc etc.
    "I go to bed with the chickens I do"

    "....and I suppose you get up with the cows?"

    "No Sir. The wife"

    (Benny Hill)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,393
    On topic, I spent my youth with rock 'n roll, followed by The Beatles and The Wurzles. Music was FUN!
  • isamisam Posts: 43,314
    edited January 4
    Something struck me about song lyrics years ago, that I have mentioned on here before I think; In the sixties, break up songs focussed on the sadness the singer felt, how they missed their ex and wished they'd come back. In the 21st century it is all about how they don't care, F-you, never liked them anyway etc... there just doesn't seem the market for honest reflection anymore, and I think that shift is replicated in our politics, advertising, and life in general

    Less honesty, more spin I suppose

  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731
    The Smiths were not too cheerful
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,034

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    That's nice rhetoric but in-work poverty increased significantly under the Conservatives, despite a strong record on employment, and is significantly higher than our counterparts elsewhere.

    So no, child poverty is not solved by getting people into work. You have to pay them properly too - the kind of wage that allows them to support a family, not make us a cheap cup of coffee.
    No, child poverty is absolutely solved by getting people into work. That's precisely how everyone else supports their families - by earning a wage. I agree benefits should provide a basic safety net; I do not agree they should subsidise lifestyles.

    Public policy should not be led by the nose by lobby groups like the Rowntree Foundation, nor major spending decisions made on the basis of moving hundreds of thousands of people above or below an arbitrary line on a spreadsheet and then declaring the problem "solved". They will continue to sit wasting away on low incomes with a limited lifestyle and their potential totally unrealised. That's absolutely mad, especially whilst we face one of the biggest geopolitical challenges of the century.

    I fundamentally disagree with you.
    FPT you can't really disagree with the maths though - if you have millions of people in-work but on low wages, poverty will be high.
    People in work have much higher incomes than those on benefits, as well as a career path.
    Not in the gig economy they don't. Something like 70% of children in poverty are in working households.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,097
    I wonder how much worse it would be if The Smiths were still going?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,839
    Well, I'd be a richer man if I had followed 90s music lyrics.

    The winner of the New Year's Day Hurdle at Windsor was LISTENTOYOURHEART at 6/1.

  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,003
    isam said:

    Something struck me about song lyrics years ago, that I have mentioned on here before I think; In the sixties, break up songs focussed on the sadness the singer felt, how they missed their ex and wished they'd come back, in the 21st century it is all about how they don't care, never liked them anyway etc... there just doesn't seem the market for honest reflection anymore, and I think that shift is replicated in our politics.

    Less honesty, more spin I suppose

    It’s probably linked to the rise of social media and “main character syndrome” where a few generations are convinced the world revolves around them and we want to know what they are eating, doing, who with and where every day.

    You are no longer sad and accepting and longing, you are now a victim, have been wronged, will get revenge.

    I will stick to the Cure and sad songs about Caterpillars, Heads on Doors and Albert Camus stories.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,217

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    That's nice rhetoric but in-work poverty increased significantly under the Conservatives, despite a strong record on employment, and is significantly higher than our counterparts elsewhere.

    So no, child poverty is not solved by getting people into work. You have to pay them properly too - the kind of wage that allows them to support a family, not make us a cheap cup of coffee.
    No, child poverty is absolutely solved by getting people into work. That's precisely how everyone else supports their families - by earning a wage. I agree benefits should provide a basic safety net; I do not agree they should subsidise lifestyles.

    Public policy should not be led by the nose by lobby groups like the Rowntree Foundation, nor major spending decisions made on the basis of moving hundreds of thousands of people above or below an arbitrary line on a spreadsheet and then declaring the problem "solved". They will continue to sit wasting away on low incomes with a limited lifestyle and their potential totally unrealised. That's absolutely mad, especially whilst we face one of the biggest geopolitical challenges of the century.

    I fundamentally disagree with you.
    FPT you can't really disagree with the maths though - if you have millions of people in-work but on low wages, poverty will be high.
    People in work have much higher incomes than those on benefits, as well as a career path.
    Phew, I knew all these Daily Mail stories about folk on benefits getting by on £140k a year were bullshit.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,855
    Cookie said:

    We and us is being replaced by I amd me in chart music because solo artists are dominating the charts. I don't think there's been more than 1 #1 by a group rather than a solo artist in tge last ten years.

    I hadn't realised that and you're right! Group performance is more engaging - big exceptions apply of course.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 31,564
    edited January 4

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    I note that my area does very well, but also that it's an intricate Lib Dem map of "increases", with a note in the comments saying that a lot of it is due to the rushed introduction of online appointments, and the Department saying that the LDs have included non-urgent appointments in the numbers and called it "Urgent".

    If anyone navigates this minefield, could you let me know !
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,731
    We should all be cheerful, then, given that Christmas on the BBC is essentially a 1970/80s fest since they haven't made anything worth repeating at festive time (Gavin & Stacey excepted) since those farway decades.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,314
    Taz said:

    The Smiths were not too cheerful

    dixiedean said:

    I wonder how much worse it would be if The Smiths were still going?

    "It's so easy to laugh it's so easy to hate, it takes strength to be gentle and kind"
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,216
    edited January 4

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    In an alternative universe maybe.

    Of course the Wilson Government heralded the British invasion of America and punk was a product of antithesis towards the Callaghan government and authority in general. What did Heath bring to the party? Glam rock!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,192

    On topic, I spent my youth with rock 'n roll, followed by The Beatles and The Wurzles. Music was FUN!

    I was at a funeral in 2023 at an abbey church in Cumbria, c 1150, with hundreds of people attending. For half an hour before the start we all stood outside listening to a bank of loudspeakers playing 'I've got a brand new combine harvester'.

    Lyrics attached.

    https://www.thewurzels.com/lyricscombine.htm
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,709
    Song lyrics resonate with people. That's why it's not unusual to see them crowbarred into anything and everything.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,377
    stodge said:

    Well, I'd be a richer man if I had followed 90s music lyrics.

    The winner of the New Year's Day Hurdle at Windsor was LISTENTOYOURHEART at 6/1.

    Sounds Dangerous to me.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 13,470
    Everyone's notion of the past seems to only go back to their time as a teenager. There was a time before that.

    On a parallel note it also seems to be the same in business with organisations and marketing etc reinventing itself every few years. And here is a classic example:

    I worked with a business putting on their annual customer event. At one point they completely cleared out their marketing department and I was working with a new group of individuals. They promoted their next event as the biggest ever, yet it was a 1 day event and in previous years it had been a two day event and they booked a key note speaker that they were really proud of getting. We had used him 2 years beforehand. To any customer who had been around for 2 or more years it was clear they hadn't a clue. All they had to do was check on what had been done before and I did try telling them.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,729
    boulay said:

    isam said:

    Something struck me about song lyrics years ago, that I have mentioned on here before I think; In the sixties, break up songs focussed on the sadness the singer felt, how they missed their ex and wished they'd come back, in the 21st century it is all about how they don't care, never liked them anyway etc... there just doesn't seem the market for honest reflection anymore, and I think that shift is replicated in our politics.

    Less honesty, more spin I suppose

    It’s probably linked to the rise of social media and “main character syndrome” where a few generations are convinced the world revolves around them and we want to know what they are eating, doing, who with and where every day.

    You are no longer sad and accepting and longing, you are now a victim, have been wronged, will get revenge.

    I will stick to the Cure and sad songs about Caterpillars, Heads on Doors and Albert Camus stories.
    Interesting you use the word victim there. It came to my mind, but in a different way.

    I wondered about the connection with the change from 'victim' to 'survivor' and whether that was part of the shift isam had identified.

    Maybe people are resisting the label of a victim when it does apply, and adopting it when it doesn't?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 46,217
    IanB2 said:

    We should all be cheerful, then, given that Christmas on the BBC is essentially a 1970/80s fest since they haven't made anything worth repeating at festive time (Gavin & Stacey excepted) since those farway decades.

    BBC4 has completely gone to crap, no more interesting international series at 9pm on a Saturday, just loads of BBC repeats. The Great Escape on 01/01/2026 which I'm confident had already been in the schedules at least once over the festive period.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,393
    algarkirk said:

    On topic, I spent my youth with rock 'n roll, followed by The Beatles and The Wurzles. Music was FUN!

    I was at a funeral in 2023 at an abbey church in Cumbria, c 1150, with hundreds of people attending. For half an hour before the start we all stood outside listening to a bank of loudspeakers playing 'I've got a brand new combine harvester'.

    Lyrics attached.

    https://www.thewurzels.com/lyricscombine.htm
    I went to a funeral once where the coffin was brought in on a forklift. Can't recall the music exactly but it was very sixties.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,855
    edited January 4

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,729
    kinabalu said:

    Song lyrics resonate with people. That's why it's not unusual to see them crowbarred into anything and everything.

    For a very long time I really didn't notice the lyrics to songs at all. As the words to one of the few songs whose lyrics I did notice had it:

    "The lyrics aren't supposed to mean that much
    They're just a vehicle for a lovely voice..."


    When, in later years, the lyrics to my favourite tunes did begin to percolate into my conscious mind I was often surprised that the subject matter was not as wholesome as I had supposed.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,216

    algarkirk said:

    On topic, I spent my youth with rock 'n roll, followed by The Beatles and The Wurzles. Music was FUN!

    I was at a funeral in 2023 at an abbey church in Cumbria, c 1150, with hundreds of people attending. For half an hour before the start we all stood outside listening to a bank of loudspeakers playing 'I've got a brand new combine harvester'.

    Lyrics attached.

    https://www.thewurzels.com/lyricscombine.htm
    I went to a funeral once where the coffin was brought in on a forklift. Can't recall the music exactly but it was very sixties.
    Was it an uplifting funeral?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,709

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    In an alternative universe maybe.

    Of course the Wilson Government heralded the British invasion of America and punk was a product of antithesis towards the Callaghan government and authority in general. What did Heath bring to the party? Glam rock!
    When Apple were faced with doing an 8 part series on music centred around one particular year they chose 1971. So I think with Heath, as so often is the case, the early stuff is the best.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 53,731
    edited January 4

    IanB2 said:

    We should all be cheerful, then, given that Christmas on the BBC is essentially a 1970/80s fest since they haven't made anything worth repeating at festive time (Gavin & Stacey excepted) since those farway decades.

    BBC4 has completely gone to crap, no more interesting international series at 9pm on a Saturday, just loads of BBC repeats. The Great Escape on 01/01/2026 which I'm confident had already been in the schedules at least once over the festive period.
    It was on Boxing Day after the Italian Job - a decent piece of Xmas scheduling for BBC2. Since you could still get the GE on iPlayer from Boxing Day it seems weird for them to be showing it again at New Year, except to fill a few hours.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,216
    edited January 4
    kinabalu said:

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    In an alternative universe maybe.

    Of course the Wilson Government heralded the British invasion of America and punk was a product of antithesis towards the Callaghan government and authority in general. What did Heath bring to the party? Glam rock!
    When Apple were faced with doing an 8 part series on music centred around one particular year they chose 1971. So I think with Heath, as so often is the case, the early stuff is the best.
    I was being mischievous. Had Marc Bolan survived the car crash on Barnes Common he would have been one of the greats of Rock and Roll, and the Sweet, are a guilty pleasure, as with Roxy. Never really got Bowie, Wizard, Slade, ELO and the Leader mind.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,097

    boulay said:

    isam said:

    Something struck me about song lyrics years ago, that I have mentioned on here before I think; In the sixties, break up songs focussed on the sadness the singer felt, how they missed their ex and wished they'd come back, in the 21st century it is all about how they don't care, never liked them anyway etc... there just doesn't seem the market for honest reflection anymore, and I think that shift is replicated in our politics.

    Less honesty, more spin I suppose

    It’s probably linked to the rise of social media and “main character syndrome” where a few generations are convinced the world revolves around them and we want to know what they are eating, doing, who with and where every day.

    You are no longer sad and accepting and longing, you are now a victim, have been wronged, will get revenge.

    I will stick to the Cure and sad songs about Caterpillars, Heads on Doors and Albert Camus stories.
    Interesting you use the word victim there. It came to my mind, but in a different way.

    I wondered about the connection with the change from 'victim' to 'survivor' and whether that was part of the shift isam had identified.

    Maybe people are resisting the label of a victim when it does apply, and adopting it when it doesn't?
    Victim, survivor, thriver is the journey of trauma recovery.
    Some never progress beyond the first stage unfortunately. But labelling them as stuck in it in perpetuity has obvious downsides.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,202
    80s music trivia:

    I was a classmate and reasonably close friend of the son of one of the co-writers of "Mistletoe & Wine".
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,202
    UK number 1 forty years ago this week:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-PyWfVkjZc
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 85,025
    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It would buy us about 300 CV90s, and we could scrap Ajax.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,033
    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    My priority is the security and defence of this country, upon which all our freedom and prosperity depends.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,905

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    FPT:

    The Government should force through the online booking systems that are being opposed by the BMA. As I have said many times before our GP surgery uses the 'Ask My GP' system and it works brilliantly. I have never had to wait more than 1 working day for an appointment if necessary and generally get a response from the GP well before midday with arrangements - pharmacy, phone diagnosis or in person appointment. And this is for a GP surgery which has seen a 60% increase in patients in the last decade.

    These systems are not perfect but generally they work very well. The BMA should be ashamed for leading resistance to them.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,577

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    edited January 4

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    FPT:

    The Government should force through the online booking systems that are being opposed by the BMA. As I have said many times before our GP surgery uses the 'Ask My GP' system and it works brilliantly. I have never had to wait more than 1 working day for an appointment if necessary and generally get a response from the GP well before midday with arrangements - pharmacy, phone diagnosis or in person appointment. And this is for a GP surgery which has seen a 60% increase in patients in the last decade.

    These systems are not perfect but generally they work very well. The BMA should be ashamed for leading resistance to them.
    Its laughable in 2025 that online booking is seen as some complicated contriversial system to deploy by the BMA / NHS. Its not 2005.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,393

    algarkirk said:

    On topic, I spent my youth with rock 'n roll, followed by The Beatles and The Wurzles. Music was FUN!

    I was at a funeral in 2023 at an abbey church in Cumbria, c 1150, with hundreds of people attending. For half an hour before the start we all stood outside listening to a bank of loudspeakers playing 'I've got a brand new combine harvester'.

    Lyrics attached.

    https://www.thewurzels.com/lyricscombine.htm
    I went to a funeral once where the coffin was brought in on a forklift. Can't recall the music exactly but it was very sixties.
    Was it an uplifting funeral?
    The deceased was a "local character". Need I write more!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 100,207

    kinabalu said:

    Song lyrics resonate with people. That's why it's not unusual to see them crowbarred into anything and everything.

    For a very long time I really didn't notice the lyrics to songs at all. As the words to one of the few songs whose lyrics I did notice had it:

    "The lyrics aren't supposed to mean that much
    They're just a vehicle for a lovely voice..."


    When, in later years, the lyrics to my favourite tunes did begin to percolate into my conscious mind I was often surprised that the subject matter was not as wholesome as I had supposed.
    A lot of the time lyrics mean nothing much at all, where they do mean something listeners often misinterpret them, and where they don't misinterpret much of what is left expresses very basic or insipid notions.

    So regrettably to any aspiring lyricists out there I think they need to temper their expectations of what people will get out of their words.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,202
    boulay said:

    isam said:

    Something struck me about song lyrics years ago, that I have mentioned on here before I think; In the sixties, break up songs focussed on the sadness the singer felt, how they missed their ex and wished they'd come back, in the 21st century it is all about how they don't care, never liked them anyway etc... there just doesn't seem the market for honest reflection anymore, and I think that shift is replicated in our politics.

    Less honesty, more spin I suppose

    It’s probably linked to the rise of social media and “main character syndrome” where a few generations are convinced the world revolves around them and we want to know what they are eating, doing, who with and where every day.

    You are no longer sad and accepting and longing, you are now a victim, have been wronged, will get revenge.

    I will stick to the Cure and sad songs about Caterpillars, Heads on Doors and Albert Camus stories.
    Robert Smith is a big Depeche Mode fan!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,393

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    FPT:

    The Government should force through the online booking systems that are being opposed by the BMA. As I have said many times before our GP surgery uses the 'Ask My GP' system and it works brilliantly. I have never had to wait more than 1 working day for an appointment if necessary and generally get a response from the GP well before midday with arrangements - pharmacy, phone diagnosis or in person appointment. And this is for a GP surgery which has seen a 60% increase in patients in the last decade.

    These systems are not perfect but generally they work very well. The BMA should be ashamed for leading resistance to them.
    Its laughable in 2025 that online booking is seen as some complicated contriversial system to deploy by the BMA / NHS. Its not 2005.
    I'm about (well, tomorrow) to try my local surgery's new system for a non-urgent but unpleasant problem.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,234
    edited January 4

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    FPT:

    The Government should force through the online booking systems that are being opposed by the BMA. As I have said many times before our GP surgery uses the 'Ask My GP' system and it works brilliantly. I have never had to wait more than 1 working day for an appointment if necessary and generally get a response from the GP well before midday with arrangements - pharmacy, phone diagnosis or in person appointment. And this is for a GP surgery which has seen a 60% increase in patients in the last decade.

    These systems are not perfect but generally they work very well. The BMA should be ashamed for leading resistance to them.
    Its laughable in 2025 that online booking is seen as some complicated contriversial system to deploy by the BMA / NHS. Its not 2005.
    It's not complex but you do need to triage things quickly as it's remarkable how many people won't call 111 to get sent in the correct direction.

    As a point of reference Mrs Eek and her mum are in Kent because someone didn't pick up that they cold had turned into pneumonia with added sepsis shes now in Hospital with DNR attached to her notes because her lungs are suspected to be irreparable,.

    Which is why the online consultation forms are only available at times when someone is around to quickly triage them so things like that don't wait 72 hours before being picked up.

    Now what would be sensible here is for that initial triage to be centralised and made 24/7 but that would require changes to the GP system and they like their independence.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,729
    dixiedean said:

    boulay said:

    isam said:

    Something struck me about song lyrics years ago, that I have mentioned on here before I think; In the sixties, break up songs focussed on the sadness the singer felt, how they missed their ex and wished they'd come back, in the 21st century it is all about how they don't care, never liked them anyway etc... there just doesn't seem the market for honest reflection anymore, and I think that shift is replicated in our politics.

    Less honesty, more spin I suppose

    It’s probably linked to the rise of social media and “main character syndrome” where a few generations are convinced the world revolves around them and we want to know what they are eating, doing, who with and where every day.

    You are no longer sad and accepting and longing, you are now a victim, have been wronged, will get revenge.

    I will stick to the Cure and sad songs about Caterpillars, Heads on Doors and Albert Camus stories.
    Interesting you use the word victim there. It came to my mind, but in a different way.

    I wondered about the connection with the change from 'victim' to 'survivor' and whether that was part of the shift isam had identified.

    Maybe people are resisting the label of a victim when it does apply, and adopting it when it doesn't?
    Victim, survivor, thriver is the journey of trauma recovery.
    Some never progress beyond the first stage unfortunately. But labelling them as stuck in it in perpetuity has obvious downsides.
    For sure, but I think you have to accept being at the first stage before you can move onto the second. My perception has been that use of victim as a label has been deprecated entirely, as though it's a demeaning word, in some contexts.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    edited January 4
    eek said:

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    FPT:

    The Government should force through the online booking systems that are being opposed by the BMA. As I have said many times before our GP surgery uses the 'Ask My GP' system and it works brilliantly. I have never had to wait more than 1 working day for an appointment if necessary and generally get a response from the GP well before midday with arrangements - pharmacy, phone diagnosis or in person appointment. And this is for a GP surgery which has seen a 60% increase in patients in the last decade.

    These systems are not perfect but generally they work very well. The BMA should be ashamed for leading resistance to them.
    Its laughable in 2025 that online booking is seen as some complicated contriversial system to deploy by the BMA / NHS. Its not 2005.
    It's not complex but you do need to triage things quickly as it's remarkable how many people won't call 111 to get sent in the correct direction.

    As a point of reference Mrs Eek and her mum are in Kent because someone didn't pick up that they cold had turned into pneumonia with added sepsis shes now in Hospital with DNR attached to her notes because her lungs are suspected to be irreparable,.

    Which is why the online consultation forms are only available at times when someone is around to quickly triage them so things like that don't wait 72 hours before being picked up.

    Now what would be sensible here is for that initial triage to be centralised and made 24/7 but that would require changes to the GP system and they like their independence.
    This particular failure is an example of been a long running joke that is technology usage across the NHS. Blair instinct on needing better technology in the NHS was right, the implementation was a shit show. But then successive government have somehow managed to promise it but not make it a reality to where in 2025 we are still talking about a sodding online booking systems to see a GP everywhere in E&W being a goal.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,978
    edited January 4

    On Topic:

    The 'Long Seventies' (1968-1982) was by far the best era of music. It has been all downhill since then even if there have been rare hummocks of decent music.

    For me it's roughly 1976 to 1998.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,577
    Fire brigades struggle to recruit firefighters under 24 to ageing crews
    New data released by the Home Office shows that fire brigades are struggling to hire younger staff and many are working for longer after pension changes

    https://inews.co.uk/news/fire-brigades-struggle-recruit-young-firefighters-risk-4142790
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,905
    eek said:

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    FPT:

    The Government should force through the online booking systems that are being opposed by the BMA. As I have said many times before our GP surgery uses the 'Ask My GP' system and it works brilliantly. I have never had to wait more than 1 working day for an appointment if necessary and generally get a response from the GP well before midday with arrangements - pharmacy, phone diagnosis or in person appointment. And this is for a GP surgery which has seen a 60% increase in patients in the last decade.

    These systems are not perfect but generally they work very well. The BMA should be ashamed for leading resistance to them.
    Its laughable in 2025 that online booking is seen as some complicated contriversial system to deploy by the BMA / NHS. Its not 2005.
    It's not complex but you do need to triage things quickly as it's remarkable how many people won't call 111 to get sent in the correct direction.

    As a point of reference Mrs Eek and her mum are in Kent because someone didn't pick up that they cold had turned into pneumonia with added sepsis shes now in Hospital with DNR attached to her notes because her lungs are suspected to be irreparable,.

    Which is why the online consultation forms are only available at times when someone is around to quickly triage them so things like that don't wait 72 hours before being picked up.

    Now what would be sensible here is for that initial triage to be centralised and made 24/7 but that would require changes to the GP system and they like their independence.
    Well no-one at a GP surgery is going to be seeing anything at 3am anyway under any system past or present (at least not since the advent of the NHS)

    My GP surgery assigns one doctor every morning from 7am to 9am to triage all the requests that have come in overnight. They assign stuff to the relevant departments (pharmacy, nurse etc) and then prioritise the cases that need a face to face appointment. As I say, it means you are rarelty waiting more than 1 working day for a face to face if needed. And for me persobnaly I have always been able to get a same day appointment if the doc thinks it necessary.

    The system works. It has done since well before covid.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 8,158
    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    I have to plead with some relatives to persist because they are frustrated by a) the difficulty seeing anyone and b) the hostility they will receive when they dare to try to see someone.

    I know those working in health are facing some really tough challenges but damn, the stereotype of the overly aggressive gatekeeper is real.

    My GP has a system where you can email with a summary of symptoms and a doctor will triage - just advice, a standard appointment in a couple of weeks, an urgent appointment, or told to go to A&E or urgent care.

    Avoids the phonecalls and receptionists entirely.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    edited January 4
    carnforth said:

    kle4 said:

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    I have to plead with some relatives to persist because they are frustrated by a) the difficulty seeing anyone and b) the hostility they will receive when they dare to try to see someone.

    I know those working in health are facing some really tough challenges but damn, the stereotype of the overly aggressive gatekeeper is real.

    My GP has a system where you can email with a summary of symptoms and a doctor will triage - just advice, a standard appointment in a couple of weeks, an urgent appointment, or told to go to A&E or urgent care.

    Avoids the phonecalls and receptionists entirely.
    Head desk thud...emails...in 2025...for this....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,855

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    I wouldn't say this is an either/or. Safety nets exist to catch people when desirable outcomes like the one you mention don't apply. This is the principle behind any welfare. I don't think it's fair to say the principle uniquely doesn't apply to child number 3 in a family.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 48,709

    kinabalu said:

    Song lyrics resonate with people. That's why it's not unusual to see them crowbarred into anything and everything.

    For a very long time I really didn't notice the lyrics to songs at all. As the words to one of the few songs whose lyrics I did notice had it:

    "The lyrics aren't supposed to mean that much
    They're just a vehicle for a lovely voice..."


    When, in later years, the lyrics to my favourite tunes did begin to percolate into my conscious mind I was often surprised that the subject matter was not as wholesome as I had supposed.
    Yes, some of my favourite songs have sentiments and language of which I don't wholly approve. The trick is to find the positives so I can keep listening.

    Eg the Hollies Gasoline Alley Bred (which I absolutely love) kicks off with the rousing exhortation "Woman get your head out of curlers".

    At first, following enlightenment, I worried I'd have to jettison this song. That opening line sounded harsh and patriarchal. However when I studied the song as a whole there was no problem. Quite the opposite - it's a poignant reflection on a relationship based on empathy and mutual respect.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    edited January 4
    Former captain Michael Vaughan said Zak Crawley "frustrates the life out of me", but England should persevere with the opener. "He looks such a good player - and then just gets out,"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c87rx244lnno

    Well he isn't a f##king good player then is he. Its like saying well he looks great bowling at 95mph but most of the balls are too short of a length and / or wide of the wickets. Or great golf swing, brilliant from tee to green but 3 putts every other hole.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,161

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
    Suspect there was also a lot more grotty-but-very-cheap housing in the edgy bits of big cities.

    If you want to move to London with nothing but youth, talent and a dream, where the heck do you try to live these days?

    (Not quite Housing Theory Of Everything, but pretty close.)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    edited January 4

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
    Suspect there was also a lot more grotty-but-very-cheap housing in the edgy bits of big cities.

    If you want to move to London with nothing but youth, talent and a dream, where the heck do you try to live these days?

    (Not quite Housing Theory Of Everything, but pretty close.)
    Southend, Crawley, Slough, Luton and other similar shit towns.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,574
    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    I don't envy his position, he is boxed in from all sides.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,729

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
    Suspect there was also a lot more grotty-but-very-cheap housing in the edgy bits of big cities.

    If you want to move to London with nothing but youth, talent and a dream, where the heck do you try to live these days?

    (Not quite Housing Theory Of Everything, but pretty close.)
    People still find places to squat in London.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    80s music trivia:

    I was a classmate and reasonably close friend of the son of one of the co-writers of "Mistletoe & Wine".

    A Xmas hit is a great pension.

    Jona Lewie was interviewed recently in the ThisisMoney page and said ‘Stop the Cavalry’ is worth about £100K a year.

    Nice
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,577
    edited January 4

    eek said:

    isam said:

    This came across to me like the pleading of a man whose wife has said she’s about to leave him

    I know people are frustrated about the pace of change. I am too.

    Getting our country back on track will take time, but despite the chaos we inherited, we're making progress.

    Wages are rising faster than prices. Waiting lists are down. Inflation and interest rates are falling.

    This year, Britain will turn the corner, and you will start to feel the change we promised – in your bills, in your community and in your public services.


    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2007730698958827991?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Starmer might have a point. There are still three and a half years before a general election is likely, and it is entirely plausible that things might be better by then. The natural state of the economy is growth, albeit sluggish growth, and there do not seem to be as many complaints about GP appointments. England will be well on the way to qualification for the 2030 World Cup after the frustration of losing the 2026 final to Germany. On penalties. And the minor countries will still be in with a shout if Denmark can beat Estonia by a clear eight goals. President Trump ending all wars will mean normalisation of world trade, so food, energy and manufactured goods should fall in price.

    As to who will lead Labour into the election...
    Hundreds of thousands more people are facing waits of over a month for GP appointments since Labour got into power, new analysis has found.

    Around 1.7 million people had to wait over a month for an appointment in November, the analysis from the Liberal Democrats claims, 246,625 higher than when Labour took office in July last year.

    The research also finds that 7.6 million patients had to wait more than four weeks to see a GP over the autumn (between September and November), up by over 300,000 since the same period last year.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-nhs-waiting-time-doctor-appointments-labour-b2891647.html

    My GP has been busy texting me for the last month or two basically saying don't bother trying to book appointments (luckily I haven't needed to).
    FPT:

    The Government should force through the online booking systems that are being opposed by the BMA. As I have said many times before our GP surgery uses the 'Ask My GP' system and it works brilliantly. I have never had to wait more than 1 working day for an appointment if necessary and generally get a response from the GP well before midday with arrangements - pharmacy, phone diagnosis or in person appointment. And this is for a GP surgery which has seen a 60% increase in patients in the last decade.

    These systems are not perfect but generally they work very well. The BMA should be ashamed for leading resistance to them.
    Its laughable in 2025 that online booking is seen as some complicated contriversial system to deploy by the BMA / NHS. Its not 2005.
    It's not complex but you do need to triage things quickly as it's remarkable how many people won't call 111 to get sent in the correct direction.

    As a point of reference Mrs Eek and her mum are in Kent because someone didn't pick up that they cold had turned into pneumonia with added sepsis shes now in Hospital with DNR attached to her notes because her lungs are suspected to be irreparable,.

    Which is why the online consultation forms are only available at times when someone is around to quickly triage them so things like that don't wait 72 hours before being picked up.

    Now what would be sensible here is for that initial triage to be centralised and made 24/7 but that would require changes to the GP system and they like their independence.
    Well no-one at a GP surgery is going to be seeing anything at 3am anyway under any system past or present (at least not since the advent of the NHS)

    My GP surgery assigns one doctor every morning from 7am to 9am to triage all the requests that have come in overnight. They assign stuff to the relevant departments (pharmacy, nurse etc) and then prioritise the cases that need a face to face appointment. As I say, it means you are rarelty waiting more than 1 working day for a face to face if needed. And for me persobnaly I have always been able to get a same day appointment if the doc thinks it necessary.

    The system works. It has done since well before covid.
    GPs used to make home visits. These days you've got 17 surgeries sharing one on-call doctor and the chances are he is moonlighting for Deliveroo. As this is the music thread, the BBC's most banned artiste sings about pre-NHS medics:-

    But just about a week ago I got a awful fright,
    I had to get dressed quickly in the middle of the night.
    And with my little ukulele in my hand, I ran along the road for Dr. Brand

    It didn't take him long to get his little bag of tools.
    I held his hat and coat and let him have my book of rules.

    Out of the bedroom door he looked and smiled
    He said, "Come inside and meet your wife and child."
    My heart it jumped with joy, I could see it was a boy
    For he had his ukulele in his hand
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,574

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    I don't envy his position, he is boxed in from all sides.
    No, he isn't. Grow a pair and align as a European block against the axis forces of Russia and America. Why delay? Lets assume Greenland really is next to get invaded - America departs from NATO as Article 5 is triggered against them. As America's new security policy declares us the enemy why are we even pretending these fascist fucks are our allies? They're not.

    Haul America up before the Security Council. Get a NATO meeting called and let America boycott or walk out if it chooses to. Put pressure on them.

    Trump and his cronies believe they can do what they like and we will just acquiesce. We need to show that isn't true.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    I wouldn't say this is an either/or. Safety nets exist to catch people when desirable outcomes like the one you mention don't apply. This is the principle behind any welfare. I don't think it's fair to say the principle uniquely doesn't apply to child number 3 in a family.
    Yes, the welfare safety net should apply to child 3, and 4, etc. But the main problem we have here is that the majority of people in receipt of the welfare safety net are in work. That's no longer a welfare safety net. That's subsidising employers to pay poverty wages.

    We need to address that problem at source.
    Alternatively reduce the cliff edges that mean people only want to work a set amount of hours to ensure they don’t lose their benefits.

    I was looking at doing a shop job over Xmas at one of the retailers on the Arnison, couldn’t be bothered in the end,

    All of them had 16 hour and full time opportunities.

    It’s easy to claim it is just poor paying employers but the system is also geared up to encourage it.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 2,212
    edited January 4

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    The highlighted bit needs a bit more context.

    a) The past decades were periods where money to invest in productive technology had never been cheaper
    b) It was also a period when immigration increased rapidly.

    If UK plc had been committed to investment, immigration should not have increased as it did and productivity would have scaled at a much higher level but didn't. So with more expensive capital and returns more difficult to find, what was the reason for this missed opportunity?
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    Kinder politics.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,393

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    I wouldn't say this is an either/or. Safety nets exist to catch people when desirable outcomes like the one you mention don't apply. This is the principle behind any welfare. I don't think it's fair to say the principle uniquely doesn't apply to child number 3 in a family.
    Yes, the welfare safety net should apply to child 3, and 4, etc. But the main problem we have here is that the majority of people in receipt of the welfare safety net are in work. That's no longer a welfare safety net. That's subsidising employers to pay poverty wages.

    We need to address that problem at source.
    They may be 'in work' but are they in receipt of a full-time weekly wage? Or are they working on zero-hours contracts?
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
    Suspect there was also a lot more grotty-but-very-cheap housing in the edgy bits of big cities.

    If you want to move to London with nothing but youth, talent and a dream, where the heck do you try to live these days?

    (Not quite Housing Theory Of Everything, but pretty close.)
    Southend, Crawley, Slough, Luton
    Everybody talk about Pop Muzik.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,192

    Former captain Michael Vaughan said Zak Crawley "frustrates the life out of me", but England should persevere with the opener. "He looks such a good player - and then just gets out,"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c87rx244lnno

    Well he isn't a f##king good player then is he. Its like saying well he looks great bowling at 95mph but most of the balls are too short of a length and / or wide of the wickets. Or great golf swing, brilliant from tee to green but 3 putts every other hole.

    Yes. Looking at the wrong thing. Task number one for a batsman (in Test and other first class cricket, no idea about the comedy stuff), is to not get out. A refinement of this at the Ashes Test level is to not get out faced with world class bowling - a fairly rare commodity. A further refinement in this series is to not get out against world class (or any) bowling, on difficult wickets.

    The rest is interesting but only comes into play if you can stay at the crease.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    Taz said:

    80s music trivia:

    I was a classmate and reasonably close friend of the son of one of the co-writers of "Mistletoe & Wine".

    A Xmas hit is a great pension.

    Jona Lewie was interviewed recently in the ThisisMoney page and said ‘Stop the Cavalry’ is worth about £100K a year.

    Nice
    I read somewhere that Noddy Holders yearly cheque for Slades big hit is still crazy amounts.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    Former captain Michael Vaughan said Zak Crawley "frustrates the life out of me", but England should persevere with the opener. "He looks such a good player - and then just gets out,"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c87rx244lnno

    Well he isn't a f##king good player then is he. Its like saying well he looks great bowling at 95mph but most of the balls are too short of a length and / or wide of the wickets. Or great golf swing, brilliant from tee to green but 3 putts every other hole.

    So he’s the heir apparent to Ramprakash and Hick.

    Conversely had Hick played for his native Zimbabwe he’d have had a far better batting average I’d suspect.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,234
    edited January 4
    Battlebus said:

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    The highlighted bit needs a bit more context.

    a) The past decades were periods where money to invest in productive technology had never been cheaper
    b) It was also a period when immigration increased rapidly.

    If UK plc had been committed to investment, immigration should not have increased as it did and productivity would have scaled at a much higher level but didn't. So with more expensive capital and returns more difficult to find, what was the reason for this missed opportunity?
    Austerity - after all if Government's aren't willing to spend money when borrowing is cheap why would anyone else...


    Cameron and Osborne led by example and the example was work what you have until it falls apart because you don't want to invest in making things better.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,202


    There's a TV channel called "That's 80s Music", hopefully self-explanatory.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 36,216
    edited January 4

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    I don't envy his position, he is boxed in from all sides.
    No, he isn't. Grow a pair and align as a European block against the axis forces of Russia and America. Why delay? Lets assume Greenland really is next to get invaded - America departs from NATO as Article 5 is triggered against them. As America's new security policy declares us the enemy why are we even pretending these fascist fucks are our allies? They're not.

    Haul America up before the Security Council. Get a NATO meeting called and let America boycott or walk out if it chooses to. Put pressure on them.

    Trump and his cronies believe they can do what they like and we will just acquiesce. We need to show that isn't true.
    Nigel has done the impossible. Congratulated Trump without upsetting Putin. Now that was a difficult path to negotiate. And Kemi and Bob as usual have been excellent, I'm sure.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    On Topic:

    The 'Long Seventies' (1968-1982) was by far the best era of music. It has been all downhill since then even if there have been rare hummocks of decent music.

    I’d pinch a year/18 months extra either side but I’d heartily agree
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 21,729
    Taz said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    I wouldn't say this is an either/or. Safety nets exist to catch people when desirable outcomes like the one you mention don't apply. This is the principle behind any welfare. I don't think it's fair to say the principle uniquely doesn't apply to child number 3 in a family.
    Yes, the welfare safety net should apply to child 3, and 4, etc. But the main problem we have here is that the majority of people in receipt of the welfare safety net are in work. That's no longer a welfare safety net. That's subsidising employers to pay poverty wages.

    We need to address that problem at source.
    Alternatively reduce the cliff edges that mean people only want to work a set amount of hours to ensure they don’t lose their benefits.

    I was looking at doing a shop job over Xmas at one of the retailers on the Arnison, couldn’t be bothered in the end,

    All of them had 16 hour and full time opportunities.

    It’s easy to claim it is just poor paying employers but the system is also geared up to encourage it.
    I think it is 90% poor paying employers.

    The system has to somehow force people into crap work with crap wages while not starving too many people who don't cooperate, and not costing an absolute fortune. It's balancing all those imperatives that produces the mess we have.

    Improve productivity and improve pay and a lot of those problems fall away.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    Taz said:

    80s music trivia:

    I was a classmate and reasonably close friend of the son of one of the co-writers of "Mistletoe & Wine".

    A Xmas hit is a great pension.

    Jona Lewie was interviewed recently in the ThisisMoney page and said ‘Stop the Cavalry’ is worth about £100K a year.

    Nice
    I read somewhere that Noddy Holders yearly cheque for Slades big hit is still crazy amounts.
    He wrote it with Jim Lea so they will get the majority of it.

    I bet it’s more than Jona Lewie.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    edited January 4
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    80s music trivia:

    I was a classmate and reasonably close friend of the son of one of the co-writers of "Mistletoe & Wine".

    A Xmas hit is a great pension.

    Jona Lewie was interviewed recently in the ThisisMoney page and said ‘Stop the Cavalry’ is worth about £100K a year.

    Nice
    I read somewhere that Noddy Holders yearly cheque for Slades big hit is still crazy amounts.
    He wrote it with Jim Lea so they will get the majority of it.

    I bet it’s more than Jona Lewie.
    Just googled and Guardian quotes £500k based on PRS records. Daily Mail thinks closer to £1 million all in.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 7,260

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
    Suspect there was also a lot more grotty-but-very-cheap housing in the edgy bits of big cities.

    If you want to move to London with nothing but youth, talent and a dream, where the heck do you try to live these days?

    (Not quite Housing Theory Of Everything, but pretty close.)
    People still find places to squat in London.
    Why go to London. The best music of my generation came from Liverpool. The second best came from Manchester.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,161

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
    Suspect there was also a lot more grotty-but-very-cheap housing in the edgy bits of big cities.

    If you want to move to London with nothing but youth, talent and a dream, where the heck do you try to live these days?

    (Not quite Housing Theory Of Everything, but pretty close.)
    Southend, Crawley, Slough, Luton and other similar shit towns.
    Southend is a decent spot; faded resort towns have an absolute excess of accommodation and mostly have two options. One is to become a funky artists' retreat, the other is to become a Reform hotbed.

    Suspect that big city commuters squeeze out penniless artists out of anywhere close to the big city scene, though.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,855
    edited January 4

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    I wouldn't say this is an either/or. Safety nets exist to catch people when desirable outcomes like the one you mention don't apply. This is the principle behind any welfare. I don't think it's fair to say the principle uniquely doesn't apply to child number 3 in a family.
    Yes, the welfare safety net should apply to child 3, and 4, etc. But the main problem we have here is that the majority of people in receipt of the welfare safety net are in work. That's no longer a welfare safety net. That's subsidising employers to pay poverty wages.

    We need to address that problem at source.
    It feels very theoretical to say the two child cap is not the removal of a welfare safety net. The stopping of welfare at child 3 is extremely perverse.

    I hate moral blackmail, but it's hard to avoid here because the issue is quite simple at its core. If government can lift significant numbers of children out of poverty at a relatively low cost, why wouldn't you want it to do so?

    But maybe we're taking past each other.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,577

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    I don't envy his position, he is boxed in from all sides.
    No, he isn't. Grow a pair and align as a European block against the axis forces of Russia and America. Why delay? Lets assume Greenland really is next to get invaded - America departs from NATO as Article 5 is triggered against them. As America's new security policy declares us the enemy why are we even pretending these fascist fucks are our allies? They're not.

    Haul America up before the Security Council. Get a NATO meeting called and let America boycott or walk out if it chooses to. Put pressure on them.

    Trump and his cronies believe they can do what they like and we will just acquiesce. We need to show that isn't true.
    Back in the real world, America is too rich and too powerful for any fantasies about punching the school bully on the nose. America controls everything including world trade. How will the French buy English Sparkling Wine if America shuts us out of the banking system? How will we pay income tax if 90 per cent of the government is hosted on American cloud systems? How will your YouTube channel survive if America shuts us out of the internet or disables all Teslas with over-the-air software updates (as we fear China might)?

    Hundreds of British buses have Chinese ‘kill switch’
    Security services discover SIM card technology in 700 Yutong buses could be used to disable vehicles

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-buses-chinese-kill-switch-b1264854.html
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,577



    There's a TV channel called "That's 80s Music", hopefully self-explanatory.

    Otoh MTV has just closed its channels.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,034
    edited January 4

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    I wouldn't say this is an either/or. Safety nets exist to catch people when desirable outcomes like the one you mention don't apply. This is the principle behind any welfare. I don't think it's fair to say the principle uniquely doesn't apply to child number 3 in a family.
    Yes, the welfare safety net should apply to child 3, and 4, etc. But the main problem we have here is that the majority of people in receipt of the welfare safety net are in work. That's no longer a welfare safety net. That's subsidising employers to pay poverty wages.

    We need to address that problem at source.
    They may be 'in work' but are they in receipt of a full-time weekly wage? Or are they working on zero-hours contracts?
    Average is about 21 hours, versus 32 for all workers.

    As I recall, that is brought down rather a lot by single mothers - if you strip them out the average is quite a bit higher.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,202

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    I don't envy his position, he is boxed in from all sides.
    No, he isn't. Grow a pair and align as a European block against the axis forces of Russia and America. Why delay? Lets assume Greenland really is next to get invaded - America departs from NATO as Article 5 is triggered against them. As America's new security policy declares us the enemy why are we even pretending these fascist fucks are our allies? They're not.

    Haul America up before the Security Council. Get a NATO meeting called and let America boycott or walk out if it chooses to. Put pressure on them.

    Trump and his cronies believe they can do what they like and we will just acquiesce. We need to show that isn't true.
    Back in the real world, America is too rich and too powerful for any fantasies about punching the school bully on the nose. America controls everything including world trade. How will the French buy English Sparkling Wine if America shuts us out of the banking system? How will we pay income tax if 90 per cent of the government is hosted on American cloud systems? How will your YouTube channel survive if America shuts us out of the internet or disables all Teslas with over-the-air software updates (as we fear China might)?

    Hundreds of British buses have Chinese ‘kill switch’
    Security services discover SIM card technology in 700 Yutong buses could be used to disable vehicles

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-buses-chinese-kill-switch-b1264854.html
    The buses on the 366 and 396 in Ilford are BYD.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 36,393

    The Thatcher and Major governments were excellent for the creative arts and popular culture in this country.

    A potted history of the 60s to 90s music is kids went to college (often art school) on free grants and formed bands, then claimed the dole while trying to get signed. Nowadays there's no free college and no unconstrained dole.
    Suspect there was also a lot more grotty-but-very-cheap housing in the edgy bits of big cities.

    If you want to move to London with nothing but youth, talent and a dream, where the heck do you try to live these days?

    (Not quite Housing Theory Of Everything, but pretty close.)
    Southend, Crawley, Slough, Luton and other similar shit towns.
    Southend is a decent spot; faded resort towns have an absolute excess of accommodation and mostly have two options. One is to become a funky artists' retreat, the other is to become a Reform hotbed.

    Suspect that big city commuters squeeze out penniless artists out of anywhere close to the big city scene, though.
    Southend's just lost it's Essex Uni campus, so there could be a fall in rental costs.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 34,577

    On Topic:

    The 'Long Seventies' (1968-1982) was by far the best era of music. It has been all downhill since then even if there have been rare hummocks of decent music.

    Two reasons: Radio One and Top of the Pops meant everyone listened to the same things, and playlists were eclectic. Nowadays you can go through the day never being exposed to any song you do not already like.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,192
    edited January 4
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.

    Yes, quite - we have a problem of political leadership.

    If politicians won't lead us there then why wouldn't many voters prioritise benefits that matter to them personally?
    All NATO nations committed to spend 5% of gdp on defence by 2035, even if Labour backbenchers have voted to prioritise welfare spending
    Well, that will be the challenge for the next Conservative Government, presumably in 2029. How will they reach the 5% GDP figure in the course of a Parliament - I suppose they could keep defence spending and hope GDP falls to meet the targer but, more realistically, how will they increase the number assuming it can't all be done with growth concurrent with, what I imagine, will be commitments to lower taxes such as stamp duty?
    Well they would restore the two
    child benefit cap for starters
    Labour have abandoned and
    reform the likes of PiP Labour also rejected reforms too
    Cheap jibes aside, let's get serious on numbers.

    I've seen the UK is spending £83 billion on defence this year - defence ranks fifth behind Social Care/Welfare (£379 billion), Health (£277 billion), Education (£146 billion) and Debt Interest Payments (£123 billion).

    Instead of wittering on about GDP percentages, what amount would you like the UK to spend on defence and from where does that extra funding originate?

    Looking at the income side, £329 billion from Income Tax, £214 billion from VAT, £199 billion from National Insurance.

    If you want to double the amount spent on defence to sorry £160 billion, how do you get there? What elements of the other budgets would you reduce or how much additional tax would you seek to raise?
    Well you could cut the welfare budget to £290 million for starters
    How? What are you going to cut and by how much?
    Restore the 2 child benefit cap for starters
    From what I've read, restoring the cap would save between £2 billion and £3.5 billion so it's a drop in the ocean as well as a cheap political slogan. Do the Conservatives have any answers or policies on child poverty?

    Don't bother - let's get to the substantive. Kemi Badenoch wants to "slash" "welfare". What does she mean by "slash" and, more important, what does she mean by "welfare" - funding for social care for vulnerable adults and children, pensions or, as I expect, Universal Credit and other allowances - what about Carers Allowance, by the way, would you advocate reducing that?

    Presumably based on the perception there are millions of "scroungers" all enjoying the best of life thanks to Universal Credit, the plan will be to demonise these people and use that as an argument to carry forward a broad reduction of welfare payments.

    Will the age at which individuals can collect the State pension be increased - to what and when? What measures will be taken to cajole people from living on Universal Credit back into work - will the levels of benefit be reduced to the point at which it becomes unviable to have them as your sole source of income? Will the levels of testing be enhanced to weed out the "scroungers" from those in genuine need ?

    What of the infamous "Triple Lock" - will the Conservatives be committed to that for the life of the next Parliament or will they challenge what has become the orthodoxy in recent times?
    £2billion and £3.5 billion is not a drop in the ocean; government budgets are made up of spending like this, and such attitudes are what leads to chronic waste in public spending.

    Child poverty is not solved by dribbling out an extra giro allowance at great cost to working taxpayers; it is solved by stable families in work, and that has always been the Conservative priority.
    £3 billion isn't a drop in the ocean. It doesn't support the case of people like myself, who think the two child cap is an iniquitous punishment of children for presuming to exist, to pretend it is a drop in the ocean.

    It comes down to priorities. Do you think child poverty is a blight on society? Do you think the government should take practical steps to alleviate it? If the answer to both those questions is yes, then removing the two child cap is by far the most cost effective step the government can take. After that it comes down to priorities. If government spending is constrained, and it always is, what do you rank lower and dispense with?
    I think the two-child cap is bad policy and results in bad outcomes. But I also think that fiscal transfers are a bad way to combat poverty, and yet another example of a failure of Blairite ideology.

    Firstly, it's founded on the idea that inequality as a result of economic outcomes doesn't matter, because the government can even up the balance a bit after the fact. Something along the lines of, "we don't care if people get filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes." But rich people are increasingly not willing to pay their taxes, and especially not to pay for fiscal transfers, and so the policy is a failure in its own terms.

    Secondly, the policy has unintended consequences. It results in subsidising unproductive low-wage work, reducing the competitive pressure to invest in productivity, making the country as a whole poorer in the long-term.

    A better policy mix would be to improve the incentives for businesses to invest to improve productivity and to strengthen the ability of workers to bargain for higher pay, so that the benefit from improved productivity is shared with workers.

    The country as a whole becomes richer, inequality is reduced, and poverty is reduced without the reliance on government fiscal transfers that are ever vulnerable to the next Chancellor Osborne.
    I wouldn't say this is an either/or. Safety nets exist to catch people when desirable outcomes like the one you mention don't apply. This is the principle behind any welfare. I don't think it's fair to say the principle uniquely doesn't apply to child number 3 in a family.
    Yes, the welfare safety net should apply to child 3, and 4, etc. But the main problem we have here is that the majority of people in receipt of the welfare safety net are in work. That's no longer a welfare safety net. That's subsidising employers to pay poverty wages.

    We need to address that problem at source.
    It feels very theoretical to say the two child cap is not the removal of a welfare safety net. The stopping of welfare at child 3 is extremely perverse.

    I hate moral blackmail, but it's hard to avoid here because the issue is quite simple at its core. If government can lift significant numbers of children out of poverty at a relatively low cost, why wouldn't you want it to do so?

    But maybe we're taking past each other.
    It depends what you mean by a welfare safety net. It has come to mean that without working it is possible for a family to live a life fairly closely aligned to the lowest levels of those who are are in FT work.

    It could mean something much more minimal. Food stamps; energy stamps; bus travel stamps; compulsory attendance 9-5 at an education centre; no right to remain in your current housing situation. Non compliance = losing your children etc.

    BTW I am not advocating this. But something more like this could be on the way if you look how rapidly the liberal/left have switched in migration for example.

    That FT work at lower pay levels sometimes gives you few economic advantages over you neighbour is a scandal. I note that it is a repeated refrain of Matt Goodwin.
  • TazTaz Posts: 23,731

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    80s music trivia:

    I was a classmate and reasonably close friend of the son of one of the co-writers of "Mistletoe & Wine".

    A Xmas hit is a great pension.

    Jona Lewie was interviewed recently in the ThisisMoney page and said ‘Stop the Cavalry’ is worth about £100K a year.

    Nice
    I read somewhere that Noddy Holders yearly cheque for Slades big hit is still crazy amounts.
    He wrote it with Jim Lea so they will get the majority of it.

    I bet it’s more than Jona Lewie.
    Just googled and Guardian quotes £500k based on PRS records. Daily Mail thinks closer to £1 million all in.
    Very nice !

    Writing it is the key.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312

    On Topic:

    The 'Long Seventies' (1968-1982) was by far the best era of music. It has been all downhill since then even if there have been rare hummocks of decent music.

    Two reasons: Radio One and Top of the Pops meant everyone listened to the same things, and playlists were eclectic. Nowadays you can go through the day never being exposed to any song you do not already like.
    I am surprised we haven't seen ByteDance (the people who make TikTok) get into competition with Spotify, because Spotify recommendation system walls you in pretty tightly to you like THIS music. They have the magic pixie dust algorithm for showing similar but different such it drags people out of the repetition of YouTube.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 59,763

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    I don't envy his position, he is boxed in from all sides.
    No, he isn't. Grow a pair and align as a European block against the axis forces of Russia and America. Why delay? Lets assume Greenland really is next to get invaded - America departs from NATO as Article 5 is triggered against them. As America's new security policy declares us the enemy why are we even pretending these fascist fucks are our allies? They're not.

    Haul America up before the Security Council. Get a NATO meeting called and let America boycott or walk out if it chooses to. Put pressure on them.

    Trump and his cronies believe they can do what they like and we will just acquiesce. We need to show that isn't true.
    Back in the real world, America is too rich and too powerful for any fantasies about punching the school bully on the nose. America controls everything including world trade. How will the French buy English Sparkling Wine if America shuts us out of the banking system? How will we pay income tax if 90 per cent of the government is hosted on American cloud systems? How will your YouTube channel survive if America shuts us out of the internet or disables all Teslas with over-the-air software updates (as we fear China might)?

    Hundreds of British buses have Chinese ‘kill switch’
    Security services discover SIM card technology in 700 Yutong buses could be used to disable vehicles

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-buses-chinese-kill-switch-b1264854.html
    Khan stopped buying buses made in the U.K. for TfL…
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 89,312
    edited January 4
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    80s music trivia:

    I was a classmate and reasonably close friend of the son of one of the co-writers of "Mistletoe & Wine".

    A Xmas hit is a great pension.

    Jona Lewie was interviewed recently in the ThisisMoney page and said ‘Stop the Cavalry’ is worth about £100K a year.

    Nice
    I read somewhere that Noddy Holders yearly cheque for Slades big hit is still crazy amounts.
    He wrote it with Jim Lea so they will get the majority of it.

    I bet it’s more than Jona Lewie.
    Just googled and Guardian quotes £500k based on PRS records. Daily Mail thinks closer to £1 million all in.
    Very nice !

    Writing it is the key.
    Well owning the master rights. That is why these big PE firms (and some artists themselves) have been buying the master rights to catalogues of famous music, they still get good annual cheques but increasingly they can do brand deals to leverage that music for ads on social media, tv shows etc.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 57,202

    The morning after the night before. Starmer is a worm.

    I don't envy his position, he is boxed in from all sides.
    No, he isn't. Grow a pair and align as a European block against the axis forces of Russia and America. Why delay? Lets assume Greenland really is next to get invaded - America departs from NATO as Article 5 is triggered against them. As America's new security policy declares us the enemy why are we even pretending these fascist fucks are our allies? They're not.

    Haul America up before the Security Council. Get a NATO meeting called and let America boycott or walk out if it chooses to. Put pressure on them.

    Trump and his cronies believe they can do what they like and we will just acquiesce. We need to show that isn't true.
    Back in the real world, America is too rich and too powerful for any fantasies about punching the school bully on the nose. America controls everything including world trade. How will the French buy English Sparkling Wine if America shuts us out of the banking system? How will we pay income tax if 90 per cent of the government is hosted on American cloud systems? How will your YouTube channel survive if America shuts us out of the internet or disables all Teslas with over-the-air software updates (as we fear China might)?

    Hundreds of British buses have Chinese ‘kill switch’
    Security services discover SIM card technology in 700 Yutong buses could be used to disable vehicles

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-buses-chinese-kill-switch-b1264854.html
    Khan stopped buying buses made in the U.K. for TfL…
    Yet to see Yutong buses in London, but I have seen BYD single- and double-deckers.
Sign In or Register to comment.