Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
What on earth is in the air that some of the most daft men that have ever lived find themselves vying for the job of PM.
Burnham, Farage, Lowe.
Madness. Total madness.
Money and made for rest of life for just a small bit of hassle till you get chucked out. Look at Boris, as soon as chucked out buys £8M house cash , and never has a care in the world till he pops his clogs. Good gig if you can get up that greasy pole.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Re WASPI - remember the report recommended compensation of £1,000 to £2,950 each.
But the women actually want up to £50,000 each (ie 5 years of pension).
What are the odds that if Burnham caves and gives them the £2,950 then they'll go back to Court and say Govt has admitted liability so we should now get the full £50,000.
The £2,950 is completely wrong but in overall scheme of things it's not huge and the Govt could pay it as a one-off.
But £50,000 each is obviously a massively different order of magnitude.
The idiots should have seen the changes coming, just more of people wanting something for nothing assuming they should be molly coddled from cradle to grave.
Exclusive: Rachel Reeves is planning to cut the tax burden faced by wealthy US expats, as she seeks to encourage more of them to relocate to Britain
Maybe. But it’s a positive step for once and to be commended.
The clown might think about cutting tax burden on UK citizens first.
I strongly support that view having worked with and for a few millionaires and investor types.
There are various sorts of millionaires. Those that made it and those that had it given to them. The former usually are not exceptionally bright but have a high drive and are smart enough to hire bright people to turn their drive and ideas into reality. Musk is probably the current version.
Then there are those that had it given to them may also be smart enough to keep it by using various strategies but rarely have the drive of the initial generation e.g. farmers and landowners husbanding wealth. My favourites were always the idiot sons who would sell anything to maintain their presumed status. You'd get a good deal from them for your company.
Always enjoyed working with the first group. Exciting, hard work and almost like some sort of pirate crews sailing close to the edge of whatever restrictions in place and perhaps over the line on occasion. If Reeves can identify the first group and not the idiot sons, then she is on a winner.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
The answer is fairly obvious, however, when you consider the history and background; Napoleon’s global fame and notoriety and the long road he had ridden to arrive at that battle overriding any tendency to see things only from a British viewpoint.
In Italy, you will occasionally here a complete disaster described as “un bel caporetto”, after the battle of caporetto (kobarid) which turned into a route for the Italians in WWI, after extensive use of poison gas by the Austrians, for whom it was of course a great, if ultimately futile, victory.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
You’re incredibly lucky to have a well-paid public sector job for your whole career, with a pension that simply doesn’t exist in the private sector.
Private sector pensions were totally buggered by the the Brown changes of 1997, and have only got worse since then. The vast majority of my generation (age 48) are on defined contributions schemes.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
That’s only a recommendation for supposed maladministration. Nothing else.
They are entitled to nothing. They should get nothing. If people realised any money would simply be a wealth transfer from younger to wealthy entitled boomers that support would fall.
The answer is fairly obvious, however, when you consider the history and background; Napoleon’s global fame and notoriety and the long road he had ridden to arrive at that battle overriding any tendency to see things only from a British viewpoint.
In Italy, you will occasionally here a complete disaster described as “un bel caporetto”, after the battle of caporetto (kobarid) which turned into a route for the Italians in WWI, after extensive use of poison gas by the Austrians, for whom it was of course a great, if ultimately futile, victory.
The wars which Waterloo ended are known as the Napoleonic Wars. It's kinda obvious who the main character in the story is, and therefore why Waterloo is a synonym for defeat rather than victory.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Popular yet stupid, provoking a nice headline yet harming the national interest, spending money we don't have on things we don't need.
Very modern politics.
One of the admirable things about Mayor Sadiq is that he has been prepared to push back against resistance to his policies, outer London ULEZ being the biggest example.
But also statements like this;
Complaining about nightlife when you *checks notes* choose to live in Soho is like living in South Kensington and complaining about the museums.
Or moving to Hackney and grumbling about creatives. Living in Richmond and hating green space.
He has enough electoral buffer that it's much easier for him to do it than many others, but it's still refreshing to see a politician telling campaigners that he disagrees.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
You’re incredibly lucky to have a well-paid public sector job for your whole career, with a pension that simply doesn’t exist in the private sector.
Private sector pensions were totally buggered by the the Brown changes of 1997, and have only got worse since then. The vast majority of my generation (age 48) are on defined contributions schemes.
Which isn't relevant as the WASPI people are probably the final people mainly on defined benefit schemes...
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
You’re incredibly lucky to have a well-paid public sector job for your whole career, with a pension that simply doesn’t exist in the private sector.
Private sector pensions were totally buggered by the the Brown changes of 1997, and have only got worse since then. The vast majority of my generation (age 48) are on defined contributions schemes.
Which isn't relevant as the WASPI people are probably the final people mainly on defined benefit schemes...
It is relevant when that’s the generation these WASPI leeches are expecting to pay them. A money transfer from the young to the wealthy and entitled.
I do worry that Andy Burnham may undo much of the economic policy which is starting to bear fruit.
Rachel has been quietly and steadily been overseeing genuine green shoots...but of course it's new the right wing nedia just dont want to report!
There's a lot in that imo.
But for now it is all about time - there's a race between when better times will become visible, when the Govt will communicate, and when Reform will implode and how far that will go.
My local prediction for Lee Anderson is that he will likely get and want one more term, partly because - notwithstanding from his outbursts and other problems - he has a good record as a long-ish term local Councillor, and is OK as a constituency MP. I have yet to ask local ethnic minority people what they feel about him.
Separately he needs his pension fund and, based on the 150k a year package from Westminster and 100k from GBNews at present, I think he will want a further term, to give him 15 years rather than 10 as an MP.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
I have no sympathy for the WASPI women but the point you make is a fair one. Pension planning is the longest term planning that most people undertake in their lives. It is really important that they can make those decisions against a stable and predictable background without government interference that is not signposted (as it was with the WASPIs) a long way in advance. So, to take an example, it is fairly inevitable that the age for the State pension will increase again but it needs to do so with plenty of notice.
Similarly, Chancellors are very tempted by what, looked at objectively, are ridiculously large tax free payouts from pension funds and the incredible cost of tax relief on pension contributions. Once again, although I accept change is needed, I think any changes need to be several years in advance and long term, not a short term fix for yet another "black hole".
The problem with this for politicians, of course, is that it means that they get the hostility and enmity but they don't get the money for their short term problems.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Popular yet stupid, provoking a nice headline yet harming the national interest, spending money we don't have on things we don't need.
Very modern politics.
One of the admirable things about Mayor Sadiq is that he has been prepared to push back against resistance to his policies, outer London ULEZ being the biggest example.
But also statements like this;
Complaining about nightlife when you *checks notes* choose to live in Soho is like living in South Kensington and complaining about the museums.
Or moving to Hackney and grumbling about creatives. Living in Richmond and hating green space.
He has enough electoral buffer that it's much easier for him to do it than many others, but it's still refreshing to see a politician telling campaigners that he disagrees.
Khan pushed through the ULEZ against opposition and London has seen a large drop in air pollution as a result. Burnham caved to opposition and one assumes Manchester has not seen the same reduction in air pollution. It's not a great advert for Burnham being able to grasp the nettles of the problems facing Britain.
New York just witnessed the greatest miracle since the second coming of Jesus fucking Christ!
Socialist Muslim Mayor delivers NBA championship to Nicks. Socialist Muslim Mayor delivers Premier League to Arsenal.
What does this mean for the World Cup?
I think it is potentially interesting what it means for the partisan political split across areas of the USA. A comparator is how Khan's London has been falsely demonised.
The "Democrats are Muslims working with Marxists" nuttiness seems far more embedded in the USA than here (even though we have elements of our credulous right trying to use a similar lever, and embed a similar myth.
I do worry that Andy Burnham may undo much of the economic policy which is starting to bear fruit.
Rachel has been quietly and steadily been overseeing genuine green shoots...but of course it's new the right wing nedia just dont want to report!
There's a lot in that imo.
But for now it is all about time - there's a race between when better times will become visible, when the Govt will communicate, and when Reform will implode and how far that will go.
My local prediction for Lee Anderson is that he will likely get and want one more term, partly because - notwithstanding from his outbursts and other problems - he has a good record as a long-ish term local Councillor, and is OK as a constituency MP. I have yet to ask local ethnic minority people what they feel about him.
Separately he needs his pension fund and, based on the 150k a year package from Westminster and 100k from GBNews at present, I think he will want a further term, to give him 15 years rather than 10 as an MP.
How much of the productivity increase is coming from the increasing unemployment of the most marginal workers who are being priced out of work by the increases in NMW and Employers NI? France has traditionally had much higher productivity than us per worker but most of it came from the fact that much of the casual, low skilled work that was available in the UK simply didn't exist.
Other than making employing people much more expensive it is not obvious to me what Reeves has done to help productivity.
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
Popular yet stupid, provoking a nice headline yet harming the national interest, spending money we don't have on things we don't need.
Very modern politics.
One of the admirable things about Mayor Sadiq is that he has been prepared to push back against resistance to his policies, outer London ULEZ being the biggest example.
But also statements like this;
Complaining about nightlife when you *checks notes* choose to live in Soho is like living in South Kensington and complaining about the museums.
Or moving to Hackney and grumbling about creatives. Living in Richmond and hating green space.
He has enough electoral buffer that it's much easier for him to do it than many others, but it's still refreshing to see a politician telling campaigners that he disagrees.
Khan pushed through the ULEZ against opposition and London has seen a large drop in air pollution as a result. Burnham caved to opposition and one assumes Manchester has not seen the same reduction in air pollution. It's not a great advert for Burnham being able to grasp the nettles of the problems facing Britain.
The comment about Soho is fair even though ‘checks notes’ used to be a comical comment five years ago. It’s old hat now.
However under his regime, and his useless former nighttime czar, London nightlife has been in a tailspin.
Ludicrous, and without a shred of justification or principle. The cause of Waspi women is a prime example of a sectional interest overriding the public good.
NEW: Andy Burnham has hinted at a new multibillion-pound spending commitment if he becomes PM, saying that more than 3.5mn women “deserve” compensation over what he regards as a pension scandal
That's the exact opposite of what we should be spending money on.
He must be trying to win over a few more votes of older women in Makerfield.
He's probably saying this because the female vote in Makerfield is likely to be receptive to him, whereas Reform and Restore are likely to be doing slightly better with men.
That's very perceptive. And if this is a new promise, does it indicate all is not quite so rosy in the Makerfield garden for Burnham?
No it just indicates he's an idiot who caves too easily to political pressure.
There was an interesting analysis of Burnham by Dom Lawson:. Definite similarities to Boris with his vacuousness, insecurity and yearning to be loved:
Or, as another former parliamentary colleague of Burnham observed, when I asked him about the likely next prime minister: “I’m afraid Andy thinks that politics is a popularity contest.” At that aspect he is very good. It’s not just that opinion polls show him to be the country’s most popular politician. He actually revels in meeting people on the doorstep. He wants to be loved, and is genuinely convinced that people will love him, once they meet him. The most compelling account of this is a piece in The Mill, a Manchester local news site, by its founder-editor, Joshi Herrmann. In it he wrote: “[Burnham] has an incredible gift for listening to people, speaking like them and feeling their pain. This is not a con trick or a gimmick.” But Herrmann then forensically exposed the lack of substance below. It is as if Burnham is like a beautiful iceberg; but nothing lies beneath the surface, rather than the 90 per cent of the total mass one would expect.
...
That realisation seemed to dawn on Ailbhe Rea, the political editor of the New Statesman (a Labour-supporting magazine well disposed towards Burnham), when she accompanied the would-be PM on the campaign trail last week: “I find I am still confused about where reindustrialisation or ‘ending neoliberalism’ plays [into his plans for the country].” And when she asks about the critical issue of whether the UK should be drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, Burnham responds: “I’ve got something of an open mind, you know. I don’t have a sort of fixed position.” This is alarmingly redolent of Sir Keir Starmer; and for Labour to replace one prime minister with no interest in or grip of policy by another with the same defect is almost criminally negligent — even if the new one’s vastly superior interpersonal and communication skills mean the party will poll better.
When Rea attempts to put Herrmann’s criticisms to him, she is “surprised to observe I strike a nerve”. Burnham tells her: “I didn’t read it. He’s not sympathetic, so let’s start with that.’” I reported this back to Herrmann, whom I know of old, and he laughed: “I think he reads every word that’s written about him, and certainly every tweet, to judge from his X account.”
New York just witnessed the greatest miracle since the second coming of Jesus fucking Christ!
Socialist Muslim Mayor delivers NBA championship to Nicks. Socialist Muslim Mayor delivers Premier League to Arsenal.
What does this mean for the World Cup?
I think it is potentially interesting what it means for the partisan political split across areas of the USA. A comparator is how Khan's London has been falsely demonised.
The "Democrats are Muslims working with Marxists" nuttiness seems far more embedded in the USA than here (even though we have elements of our credulous right trying to use a similar lever, and embed a similar myth.
Even better..Muslin Socialist Mayor tells Trump to feck off and HOPEFULLY delivers NBA to Knicks....(see reception Trump got at MSG the other night b4 falling asleep!)
For me the Knicks is very personal, nearly 30 years a supporter, regular attender when working there on and off. Initially taken by a few workmates who became friends, 2 of whom died on 11 September 2001, so every Knicks game I imagine them sat in their ST seats Tier 5 in MSG watching this incredible season...
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
You’re incredibly lucky to have a well-paid public sector job for your whole career, with a pension that simply doesn’t exist in the private sector.
Private sector pensions were totally buggered by the the Brown changes of 1997, and have only got worse since then. The vast majority of my generation (age 48) are on defined contributions schemes.
Which isn't relevant as the WASPI people are probably the final people mainly on defined benefit schemes...
It is relevant when that’s the generation these WASPI leeches are expecting to pay them. A money transfer from the young to the wealthy and entitled.
Here's what I would offer in i were PM with hopefully a bit more Political commonsense that Starmer or predecessors..
I would make them an offer of at least a PARTIAL recompense.
I would add on a rolling scale depending how may years they lost from 60 a rolling additional monthly uplift a WASPI Dividend if you like
It doesn't have to be a huge sum. £500 - £1000 a year.
Tokenism works sometimes if it's all thats on offer.
I'd recoup it too...by abolishing various non means tested automatic benefits to pensioners above certain income levels and others with assets above £1 million
Or both. In other words, Boris with a better haircut.
Given a choice between doing the right thing that will cause someone to argue back at them, and the wrong thing that keeps everyone happy for a bit, they both tend to choose the latter.
Some people call it "brilliant retail politics".
Not popular on PB, but compensation for the WASPI women gets a lot of support from the general public:
I don't care what the polls say. Those women went all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They are entitled to precisely nothing.
On the other hand the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended compensation between £1-3k for them.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
You’re incredibly lucky to have a well-paid public sector job for your whole career, with a pension that simply doesn’t exist in the private sector.
Private sector pensions were totally buggered by the the Brown changes of 1997, and have only got worse since then. The vast majority of my generation (age 48) are on defined contributions schemes.
Which isn't relevant as the WASPI people are probably the final people mainly on defined benefit schemes...
It is relevant when that’s the generation these WASPI leeches are expecting to pay them. A money transfer from the young to the wealthy and entitled.
Here's what I would offer in i were PM with hopefully a bit more Political commonsense that Starmer or predecessors..
I would make them an offer of at least a PARTIAL recompense.
I would add on a rolling scale depending how may years they lost from 60 a rolling additional monthly uplift a WASPI Dividend if you like
It doesn't have to be a huge sum. £500 - £1000 a year.
Tokenism works sometimes if it's all thats on offer.
I'd recoup it too...by abolishing various non means tested automatic benefits to pensioners above certain income levels and others with assets above £1 million
A year.
Are you nuts !!
The PHSO was a one off payment.
You’re taking money off other pensioners to give to entitled morons who have lost every legal challenge.
Comments
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/majority-brits-demand-government-u-34459461?fbclid=IwY2xjawHventleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbBp9Op7rBNFkaaPhA38hcQaxDdMTUIoTlwQSjwhb0ip9bwa5FDIUhdfNw_aem_mNhFhrTxbTDgsVQDalcoXA
Seems like he pressed the Big Shiny Red Button marked "Performative Fireworks Display".
A bit of lesser fire and a few minor explosions won't make Iran surrender.
I’m one of those 74%. However, my definition of fair compensation is £0.
There are various sorts of millionaires. Those that made it and those that had it given to them. The former usually are not exceptionally bright but have a high drive and are smart enough to hire bright people to turn their drive and ideas into reality. Musk is probably the current version.
Then there are those that had it given to them may also be smart enough to keep it by using various strategies but rarely have the drive of the initial generation e.g. farmers and landowners husbanding wealth. My favourites were always the idiot sons who would sell anything to maintain their presumed status. You'd get a good deal from them for your company.
Always enjoyed working with the first group. Exciting, hard work and almost like some sort of pirate crews sailing close to the edge of whatever restrictions in place and perhaps over the line on occasion. If Reeves can identify the first group and not the idiot sons, then she is on a winner.
In Italy, you will occasionally here a complete disaster described as “un bel caporetto”, after the battle of caporetto (kobarid) which turned into a route for the Italians in WWI, after extensive use of poison gas by the Austrians, for whom it was of course a great, if ultimately futile, victory.
https://x.com/maria_drutska/status/2064948996020556237
There’s now no bridges North out of Crimea, only the Kerch Bridge remains.
Rumours that the enemy might have got one pontoon up, but that’s not going to last long.
Very modern politics.
To me it is like the Triple Lock, popular because people do not understand the national finances.
I have little sympathy myself despite being buggered about in my own retirement planning by constant changes in government policy towards pensions, not all well signposted in advance.
https://bsky.app/profile/theatlantic.com/post/3mnwvjhun4l2p
(Not that I find this analysis entirely credible, for a variety of reasons)
Private sector pensions were totally buggered by the the Brown changes of 1997, and have only got worse since then. The vast majority of my generation (age 48) are on defined contributions schemes.
They are entitled to nothing. They should get nothing. If people realised any money would simply be a wealth transfer from younger to wealthy entitled boomers that support would fall.
But also statements like this;
Complaining about nightlife when you *checks notes* choose to live in Soho is like living in South Kensington and complaining about the museums.
Or moving to Hackney and grumbling about creatives. Living in Richmond and hating green space.
It's all getting a bit silly, isn't it?
https://bsky.app/profile/london.gov.uk/post/3mnykmjfq3c2o
He has enough electoral buffer that it's much easier for him to do it than many others, but it's still refreshing to see a politician telling campaigners that he disagrees.
That’s the populist approach I was criticising a couple of days ago in relation to another matter 🤡🤡🤡🤡
But for now it is all about time - there's a race between when better times will become visible, when the Govt will communicate, and when Reform will implode and how far that will go.
My local prediction for Lee Anderson is that he will likely get and want one more term, partly because - notwithstanding from his outbursts and other problems - he has a good record as a long-ish term local Councillor, and is OK as a constituency MP. I have yet to ask local ethnic minority people what they feel about him.
Separately he needs his pension fund and, based on the 150k a year package from Westminster and 100k from GBNews at present, I think he will want a further term, to give him 15 years rather than 10 as an MP.
When it's things I support, it's obeying the democratic will of the people.
When it's things I oppose, it's craven politicians cowering from the mob.
Similarly, Chancellors are very tempted by what, looked at objectively, are ridiculously large tax free payouts from pension funds and the incredible cost of tax relief on pension contributions. Once again, although I accept change is needed, I think any changes need to be several years in advance and long term, not a short term fix for yet another "black hole".
The problem with this for politicians, of course, is that it means that they get the hostility and enmity but they don't get the money for their short term problems.
The "Democrats are Muslims working with Marxists" nuttiness seems far more embedded in the USA than here (even though we have elements of our credulous right trying to use a similar lever, and embed a similar myth.
Other than making employing people much more expensive it is not obvious to me what Reeves has done to help productivity.
However under his regime, and his useless former nighttime czar, London nightlife has been in a tailspin.
Talk and wisecracks only go so far
NEW THREAD
Or, as another former parliamentary colleague of Burnham observed, when I asked him about the likely next prime minister: “I’m afraid Andy thinks that politics is a popularity contest.” At that aspect he is very good. It’s not just that opinion polls show him to be the country’s most popular politician. He actually revels in meeting people on the doorstep. He wants to be loved, and is genuinely convinced that people will love him, once they meet him. The most compelling account of this is a piece in The Mill, a Manchester local news site, by its founder-editor, Joshi Herrmann. In it he wrote: “[Burnham] has an incredible gift for listening to people, speaking like them and feeling their pain. This is not a con trick or a gimmick.” But Herrmann then forensically exposed the lack of substance below. It is as if Burnham is like a beautiful iceberg; but nothing lies beneath the surface, rather than the 90 per cent of the total mass one would expect.
...
That realisation seemed to dawn on Ailbhe Rea, the political editor of the New Statesman (a Labour-supporting magazine well disposed towards Burnham), when she accompanied the would-be PM on the campaign trail last week: “I find I am still confused about where reindustrialisation or ‘ending neoliberalism’ plays [into his plans for the country].” And when she asks about the critical issue of whether the UK should be drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea, Burnham responds: “I’ve got something of an open mind, you know. I don’t have a sort of fixed position.” This is alarmingly redolent of Sir Keir Starmer; and for Labour to replace one prime minister with no interest in or grip of policy by another with the same defect is almost criminally negligent — even if the new one’s vastly superior interpersonal and communication skills mean the party will poll better.
When Rea attempts to put Herrmann’s criticisms to him, she is “surprised to observe I strike a nerve”. Burnham tells her: “I didn’t read it. He’s not sympathetic, so let’s start with that.’” I reported this back to Herrmann, whom I know of old, and he laughed: “I think he reads every word that’s written about him, and certainly every tweet, to judge from his X account.”
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/dominic-lawson-andy-burnham-will-hate-the-job-of-prime-minister-ddjx23fq0
For me the Knicks is very personal, nearly 30 years a supporter, regular attender when working there on and off. Initially taken by a few workmates who became friends, 2 of whom died on 11 September 2001, so every Knicks game I imagine them sat in their ST seats Tier 5 in MSG watching this incredible season...
I would make them an offer of at least a PARTIAL recompense.
I would add on a rolling scale depending how may years they lost from 60 a rolling additional monthly uplift a WASPI Dividend if you like
It doesn't have to be a huge sum. £500 - £1000 a year.
Tokenism works sometimes if it's all thats on offer.
I'd recoup it too...by abolishing various non means tested automatic benefits to pensioners above certain income levels and others with assets above £1 million
Spain
France
England
Mexico
Canada
Are you nuts !!
The PHSO was a one off payment.
You’re taking money off other pensioners to give to entitled morons who have lost every legal challenge.
They can fuck off