Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Yes he seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable to me... sensible too. Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Yes. I used to employ a lady who was scrupulous about making her time sheets 16 hours a week, to the point of giving us the occasional free hour or two. If she’d “worked” 17 hours one week she’d have lost all her housing benefit and income support, some £300 a week. I wanted to offer her 30 hours a week but she couldn’t do it for benefits reasons. It was the first time I, as a young single guy running a restaurant had come across the benefits system, and it made no sense to me at all.
This is the sort of thing that UB will get rid of, whereby every hour you work will earn you more money. Doesn’t mean there won’t be teething problems with it though, especially when moving difficult and edge cases from the old to new systems. The govt do need to tread carefully on the rollout and be prepared to slow it down if necessary.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Yes he seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable to me... sensible too. Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
He should have been used throughout the GE. One of Theresa and her advisors biggest mistakes
Ms. Apocalypse, to be fair, the media picture painted of Lammy's report did not prove accurate.
The disproportionate (compared to the general population) number of minority prisoners is something that gets people riled up. The same people are not riled up by the even greater disproportionate representation of minorities in the medical profession, or the enormously greater disproportionate percentage of the prison population which is male.
Lammy's basic point (black people generally trust the police/system less and so plead guilty later, getting longer sentences) seems entirely sensible. The media broad brush of 'racism in the system' was as unhelpful as it was misleading.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
I’m inclined to agree. Fiddling with the system by government generally leads to fiddling with the system by recipients.
As someone who ran shops for some years I can see the possibilities of employing staff for just a few hours per wekk, thereby enabling to open the place for longer hours.
Not sure how Emplyers National Insurnace works now, though.
Of course there is employer's NI to think of, too. Cheaper to employ lots of people for little time than few people for long hours because of the threshold.
Thoughts and prayers go out to those in Las Vegas and caught up in this attack. Looks like the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
Shocked when I woke up this morning to see 20 people had been killed, death toll is now up to 50.
People who are obviously dead are the last to be sent to hospital so generally the death toll will rise with time, even aside from casualties dying in surgery.
Thoughts and prayers go out to those in Las Vegas and caught up in this attack. Looks like the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
Shocked when I woke up this morning to see 20 people had been killed, death toll is now up to 50.
People who are obviously dead are the last to be sent to hospital so generally the death toll will rise with time, even aside from casualties dying in surgery.
My brother-in-law is an ER doctor in Las Vegas, he got called in a couple of hours ago. I can’t imagine what he must be dealing with right now.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Yes he seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable to me... sensible too. Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
He should have been used throughout the GE. One of Theresa and her advisors biggest mistakes
Boris is, as I’ve said before, a Marmite campaigner. I suspect that under close questioning in the election campaign he’d have quite possibly done more harm to the Tory cause than good.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Yes he seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable to me... sensible too. Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
He should have been used throughout the GE. One of Theresa and her advisors biggest mistakes
Boris is, as I’ve said before, a Marmite campaigner. I suspect that under close questioning in the election campaign he’d have quite possibly done more harm to the Tory cause than good.
Boris has shot himself in the foot over the last 10 days
The Left have united around him, and enough centrists who want revenge on the Tories for Brexit will vote for him notwithstanding what it will do to the economy.
In fact, that might partly be the point: economic fallout helps to discredit Brexit. The very worst thing would be to be proved wrong by people you voted for something you despise.
They are the enthusiastic cheerleaders for the reign of Bloody Mary following the reign of the ultra-radical Edward VI acting on the first Brexit mandate of his father, Henry VIII. They want burnings at the stake, and merciless retribution.
The rest of us must wait for it to fizzle out, and Elizabeth I to take charge.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Yes he seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable to me... sensible too. Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
He should have been used throughout the GE. One of Theresa and her advisors biggest mistakes
Boris is, as I’ve said before, a Marmite campaigner. I suspect that under close questioning in the election campaign he’d have quite possibly done more harm to the Tory cause than good.
Boris has shot himself in the foot over the last 10 days
For the avoidance of doubt, I wouldn’t have minded Boris doing harm to the Tory cause!
The Left have united around him, and enough centrists who want revenge on the Tories for Brexit will vote for him notwithstanding what it will do to the economy.
In fact, that might partly be the point: economic fallout helps to discredit Brexit. The very worst thing would be to be proved wrong by people you voted for something you despise.
They are the enthusiastic cheerleaders for the reign of Bloody Mary following the reign of the ultra-radical Edward VI acting on the first Brexit mandate of his father, Henry VIII. They want burnings at the stake, and merciless retribution.
The rest of us must wait for it to fizzle out, and Elizabeth I to take charge.
Mary lasted 6 long years...
Has anyone else been reading Ken Follett's latest Kingsbridge novel?
R.I.P to all those who have died in the Las Vegas Shootings.
Yet unfortunately, I don't see anything being done about gun laws in the US.
No. And if Obama couldn't fix this I think we can regard it as unfixable for at least a generation.
What doesn't help is that Hollywood makes most of its money out of glorifying semi automatic rifles: "action film" is code for semi automatic rifle film. The films also portray these weapons as almost entirely harmless because the hero, armed with 2 pistols, invariably wipes the floor with dozens of sar wielding baddies. The infantilisation peaks in terminator 2 in the scene where Arnie inexplicably kills everyone without, for some reason, killing any of them.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Highly unlikely given that the hourly rate of tax credits is lower than the min wage. Not everyone is able to work full time due to health/ childcare etc.
If there are abuses in the system it’s from employers deliberately employing 3 people to do the job of 1 to avoid Employers’ NI
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Yes he seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable to me... sensible too. Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
He should have been used throughout the GE. One of Theresa and her advisors biggest mistakes
Boris is, as I’ve said before, a Marmite campaigner. I suspect that under close questioning in the election campaign he’d have quite possibly done more harm to the Tory cause than good.
Boris has shot himself in the foot over the last 10 days
For the avoidance of doubt, I wouldn’t have minded Boris doing harm to the Tory cause!
Not sure how Emplyers National Insurnace works now, though.
It is a masterful piece of misdirection where you think your employer is paying tax instead of you, but it is actually calculated on your salary and when you leave your employer stops paying it. So it is still an Employee tax.
So, basic rate tax + NI + Employer's NI adds up to about 40% and you can add pensions to that (increases from 2% to 5% in April and 8% in April 2019) and downwards pressure on wages is obvious.
And, if you're a student, that's 49% at anything above £25k, and about 60% above £43k. Pretty much for life because the student debt is unlikely to ever be repaid unless you earn very big money.
It's not surprising some young people turn to socialism with socialist levels of tax but without many of the benefits.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
Rather than a Robot Tax, we should continue doing what other successful countries do: encourage investment in new technologies. The problem in the UK isn't too many robots, it's getting business to invest enough in the first place. A robot tax break would be a much better policy than a robot tax.
We have been here before. Some prat was proposing a tax on all internet sales in the early 00s.
Yes, what prat thinks Amazon should have to pay VAT?
R.I.P to all those who have died in the Las Vegas Shootings.
Yet unfortunately, I don't see anything being done about gun laws in the US.
Perhaps not at the national level, but Nevada may think about tightening their lax, even by US standards, laws. When I saw the news this morning I thought Vegas had been targetted because it is high profile. But I'm sure a lot will be made of the laws in Nevada suggesting that the opportunity to perpetrate such an attack was that much greater in Vegas. I think it will have an impact on tourism in the short term and that might focus minds to do something.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Working hours have increased faster in the last five years than the increase in employment levels:
How much of the famed British "low productivity" is simply a function of cultural presenteeism?
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
I am hoping for a world where no one has to work for money - we all just make artwork and write novels, do science and get drunk. Robots bring us tasty food etc.
I think physical and mental illness would skyrocket.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Working hours have increased faster in the last five years than the increase in employment levels:
How much of the famed British "low productivity" is simply a function of cultural presenteeism?
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
The other five and a half hours presumably being spent on PB.
because robots don't pay tax -- but see Jezza's musings earlier on this thread.
Nor do combine harvesters, tractors, printing presses, or any of the myriad of other technologies which have brought us increasing prosperity over the last six hundred years or so.
Corbynism would be all about protecting producer interests at the expense of consumer interests.
It'd be that which would slow the innovation and growth of the economy right down, combined with measures that discourage people taking risks and starting new businesses so they stick in "safe" salaried employment instead, which would gradually become sclerotic.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Working hours have increased faster in the last five years than the increase in employment levels:
How much of the famed British "low productivity" is simply a function of cultural presenteeism?
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
If I find myself staying late at work then I've done something wrong.
Good speech from Hammond - he has enhanced his place in the pecking order - a serious politician
Serious, yes, but the speech looks (on paper at least, I wasn't watching) rather dull: a series of perfectly valid points, but was it anything more than that?
The Left have united around him, and enough centrists who want revenge on the Tories for Brexit will vote for him notwithstanding what it will do to the economy.
In fact, that might partly be the point: economic fallout helps to discredit Brexit. The very worst thing would be to be proved wrong by people you voted for something you despise.
They are the enthusiastic cheerleaders for the reign of Bloody Mary following the reign of the ultra-radical Edward VI acting on the first Brexit mandate of his father, Henry VIII. They want burnings at the stake, and merciless retribution.
The rest of us must wait for it to fizzle out, and Elizabeth I to take charge.
Voters have short memories. At the 2025 election economic damage will be blamed on the government, not an event seven years earlier. Corbyn will destroy Labour for a generation. It will be working class people who take the brunt of both Corbyn's hard left policies and the neo-Thatcherism that will inevitably follow.
What sort of a government do you think would do the least damage to working class people?
A thoughtful centre left government that balances growing the economy and redistributing wealth. Failing that, an economically moderate centre right one that is working to address a perceived vulnerability with the working class.
Sadly, I think we are in for 15 years of neither. Hard left knee jerk socialism with Corbyn followed by a resurgent Thatcherite/Osbornite faction taking over the Tories.
I think you are right but today, in our current environment, I don't think people want more of the same-ish with a few tweaks here and there (which of course was what the non-Jezza candidates in the Lab leadership contest offered).
People want bold moves to fix a socio-political model they believe has failed. And if it has failed them then who's to say that perception is wrong.
We are in the land of broad brush strokes and extremes and I tend to agree with you that it will take 10-15 years for such a mood to wear off, as people exhaust the alternatives to find that they cannot provide the elixir they seek.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
If there are abuses in the system it’s from employers deliberately employing 3 people to do the job of 1 to avoid Employers’ NI
Having been an employer for many years, I simply cannot imagine that any employer would do that, given the fixed costs and hassle of employing extra people.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Hammond speaking very well - though I totally disagree with him. I can see him as a serious and effective PM unlike Boris or Rees-Mogg.
I'd pegged Hammond as the grown-up choice to replace May but Conservatives don't seem to like him. Nonetheless, he may still win especially if his (or the Treasury) position on Brexit turns out to be the one we converge on.
Yes he seems, to coin a phrase, strong and stable to me... sensible too. Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
He should have been used throughout the GE. One of Theresa and her advisors biggest mistakes
Boris is, as I’ve said before, a Marmite campaigner. I suspect that under close questioning in the election campaign he’d have quite possibly done more harm to the Tory cause than good.
Was there a lot of close questioning in the election campaign?
Good speech from Hammond - he has enhanced his place in the pecking order - a serious politician
Serious, yes, but the speech looks (on paper at least, I wasn't watching) rather dull: a series of perfectly valid points, but was it anything more than that?
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Working hours have increased faster in the last five years than the increase in employment levels:
How much of the famed British "low productivity" is simply a function of cultural presenteeism?
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
The other five and a half hours presumably being spent on PB.
Janice in "Wanted": I still don't have my billing reports, but you've got time to sit there and Google your ass off.
Good speech from Hammond - he has enhanced his place in the pecking order - a serious politician
Serious, yes, but the speech looks (on paper at least, I wasn't watching) rather dull: a series of perfectly valid points, but was it anything more than that?
It was wide ranging on Corbyn economics and the need for responsible free markets and that policies must help the young and disadvantaged. He is not known as spread sheet phil for nothing but he came over better than usual.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Working hours have increased faster in the last five years than the increase in employment levels:
How much of the famed British "low productivity" is simply a function of cultural presenteeism?
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
If I find myself staying late at work then I've done something wrong.
Precisely. In the case of the individual concerned he does work very hard, but, in my view, he does work that isn't necessary. Whereas I would push back or challenge it.
He spent 3 hours rewriting a set of minutes because one person objected to the phrasing whereas I would have politely noted the feedback, and said I had better things to do.
Extra 10bn on help to buy... apparently helping 130,000 people. Not sure guardian/Hammond has that figure right... that's more than 75k per purchase?
Grr... What does he think a huge demand-side driver will do to prices in a supply-constrained market? Very short term thinking I’m afraid.
I don't think that's right. It's a demand-side driver which favours one specific type of demand (first-time buyers). It is combined with other demand-side drivers which disadvantage buy-to-let and second-home buyers. So the net effect isn't necessarily to drive up prices overall.
If there are abuses in the system it’s from employers deliberately employing 3 people to do the job of 1 to avoid Employers’ NI
Having been an employer for many years, I simply cannot imagine that any employer would do that, given the fixed costs and hassle of employing extra people.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
The spectacle of the Tories being taken roughly in every hole by Corbyn at the next election is going to be exquisite remainer revenge porn.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
The spectacle of the Tories being taken roughly in every hole by Corbyn at the next election is going to be exquisite remainer revenge porn.
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
Good speech from Hammond - he has enhanced his place in the pecking order - a serious politician
Serious, yes, but the speech looks (on paper at least, I wasn't watching) rather dull: a series of perfectly valid points, but was it anything more than that?
Hammond is Theresa May without the ladybits.
No, I don't think so. He actually is a safe pair of hands, whereas she had an image of being a safe pair of hands but unfortunately turned out the be a one-woman political wrecking ball. If she'd just kept a Hammond-like 'steady as she goes' course, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Working hours have increased faster in the last five years than the increase in employment levels:
How much of the famed British "low productivity" is simply a function of cultural presenteeism?
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
The other five and a half hours presumably being spent on PB.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
The spectacle of the Tories being taken roughly in every hole by Corbyn at the next election is going to be exquisite remainer revenge porn.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
The spectacle of the Tories being taken roughly in every hole by Corbyn at the next election is going to be exquisite remainer revenge porn.
Apart from the fact Corbyn is a leaver as well, sure....and Labour's Brexit policy is 'wibble wibble wibble'...
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
employment levels or actual working hours. I suspect working tax credits have resulted in a lot of 16 "hour" contracts allowing people to maximise their benefit claims....
Working hours have increased faster in the last five years than the increase in employment levels:
How much of the famed British "low productivity" is simply a function of cultural presenteeism?
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
The other five and a half hours presumably being spent on PB.
Janice in "Wanted": I still don't have my billing reports, but you've got time to sit there and Google your ass off.
I think it's a hangover from when work and output was more regimented and broadly linked to hours worked: clock-in, clock-out.
It's not like that in many professional industries anymore, except as a broad-brush principle, yet we still charge and measure by the hour. So we all play that game.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
The spectacle of the Tories being taken roughly in every hole by Corbyn at the next election is going to be exquisite remainer revenge porn.
Those hoping America will change its guns laws. It won't, except at the margins. Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms. So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
@glw Yep, I agree. I think Casino_Royale hits the nail on the head on this, too.
@Ishmael_Z Yep, there is definitely a thing of portraying guns/violence as glamorous within Hollywood, and that reinforces the gun culture within the US.
@tlg86 Hopefully we'll see some changes. It doesn't help that some in the US seem to see any kind of regulation of guns as some kind of attack on their human rights (yet oddly these same people don't believe healthcare is a right).
@Casino_Royale Agreed - that's one of the good things that has come out of the GE. Issues concerning young people, and the under 44s more generally are now at the forefront of British politics.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
The spectacle of the Tories being taken roughly in every hole by Corbyn at the next election is going to be exquisite remainer revenge porn.
Apart from the fact Corbyn is a leaver as well, sure....and Labour's Brexit policy is 'wibble wibble wibble'...
It doesn't matter what the old fool's policy is, revenge porn is about the humiliation.
Good speech from Hammond - he has enhanced his place in the pecking order - a serious politician
Serious, yes, but the speech looks (on paper at least, I wasn't watching) rather dull: a series of perfectly valid points, but was it anything more than that?
Hammond is Theresa May without the ladybits.
No, I don't think so. He actually is a safe pair of hands, whereas she had an image of being a safe pair of hands but unfortunately turned out the be a one-woman political wrecking ball. If she'd just kept a Hammond-like 'steady as she goes' course, we wouldn't be in this mess.
I'm afraid I disagree. Hammond's political judgement has been found wanting on his budgets, and press interventions so far.
Admittedly, he's better in political interviews because he can actually answer a question.
Re Monksfield's post. On one hand, I think it would unfair to say all Tories have contempt for young people, immigrants, the environment etc. While I don't always agree with them PB Tories such as Big_G_NorthWales and another_richard always treat others with respect and I have not seen them demonise various different groups within society negatively. I enjoy reading their contributions.
Unfortunately, I do think that some of those on the right have a tendency to display the attitudes and views Monksfield outlined in his post. Monksfield is right when he says that several PB Tories - and those who weren't necessarily Conservatives but who were anti-Corbyn - had a huge issue with young people and characterised younger voters as lazy, social media obsessed idiots who would never vote. As per my previous post, I'd add in minorities too - we get some very ''interesting'' views on PB whenever a terrorist attack happens. We already saw some ''interesting'' views after Lammy's report was released.
Being positive for a second, democracy is working as it should be: the needs of young people were somewhat sidelined prior to GE2017 and, now, they no longer are.
This is very true. However we're starting to look at some of the 'big issues', which are also the scary ones for the country to tackle.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
The spectacle of the Tories being taken roughly in every hole by Corbyn at the next election is going to be exquisite remainer revenge porn.
Apart from the fact Corbyn is a leaver as well, sure....and Labour's Brexit policy is 'wibble wibble wibble'...
Life's unfair, and wibble wibble wibble is a perfectly defensible policy if you are not in government and the election is not held till after Brexit. Whatever goes wrong, Jezza can retrospectively claim to have been against it. As for the government's position?
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
But no one except perhaps the most extreme liberals (which sounds a bit like an oxymoron) is suggesting taking away all the guns. What they are suggesting is a reasonable set of rules for the purchase and ownership of guns - mental and criminal checks, cool off periods and proper licencing. These are not extreme suggestions and even many in the gun lobby support them. Yet none of this exists in Nevada.
There are plenty of countries around the world that show it is perfectly possible to have large scale gun ownership and at the same time have good sensible gun laws.
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
America are stuck with it. That isn't to say that licencing, registration and checks couldn't be tightened up, though.
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
Yes, even if everyone can agree on the end state of gun regulation, getting to there from where we are now in the US is almost impossible. There’s thousands of high calibre automatic weapons in the country which have no real non-military use.
Rather than a Robot Tax, we should continue doing what other successful countries do: encourage investment in new technologies. The problem in the UK isn't too many robots, it's getting business to invest enough in the first place. A robot tax break would be a much better policy than a robot tax.
We have been here before. Some prat was proposing a tax on all internet sales in the early 00s.
Yes, what prat thinks Amazon should have to pay VAT?
This was a separate tax over and above vat applying to every sale made on the internet. I am not sure prat is a strong enough word for someone who thinks the hit on each and every UK internet business and customer would be an acceptable price for a right-on attack on Amazon.
Pretty sure it was 72 last week, so they must have some new younger members in last few days!
According to this study (cited by Zoe Williams in the Guardian today), the average age of Conservative Party members is 54. For Labour and the LibDems, the figure is not very different, at 51.
@glw Yep, I agree. I think Casino_Royale hits the nail on the head on this, too.
@Ishmael_Z Yep, there is definitely a thing of portraying guns/violence as glamorous within Hollywood, and that reinforces the gun culture within the US.
@tlg86 Hopefully we'll see some changes. It doesn't help that some in the US seem to see any kind of regulation of guns as some kind of attack on their human rights (yet oddly these same people don't believe healthcare is a right).
@Casino_Royale Agreed - that's one of the good things that has come out of the GE. Issues concerning young people, and the under 44s more generally are now at the forefront of British politics.
Thanks. Being positive, again, if Brexit means the WWC are taken seriously, the EU reforms, and the UK-EU relationship stabilises around a new status quo, and the young are taken seriously in the future, as well as the old, then the electoral events of 2016-2017 won't seem so bad after all.
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
But no one except perhaps the most extreme liberals (which sounds a bit like an oxymoron) is suggesting taking away all the guns. What they are suggesting is a reasonable set of rules for the purchase and ownership of guns - mental and criminal checks, cool off periods and proper licencing. These are not extreme suggestions and even many in the gun lobby support them. Yet none of this exists in Nevada.
There are plenty of countries around the world that show it is perfectly possible to have large scale gun ownership and at the same time have good sensible gun laws.
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
As with most centre-left converts to Corbynism, this article is just words. "Reskilling" via a new "National Education Service" for example. How? These are just meaningless platitudes. Better to look at what Corbyn, Mcdonnell etc actually said before they had to be more careful with their choice of words.
A Corbyn/Mcdonnell government will have economically catastrophic consequences for the UK. Probably also politically and socially too. For those who disagree, point me towards an economy that has thrived when such policies have been implemented.
On second thoughts, dont bother. There are none....
Extra 10bn on help to buy... apparently helping 130,000 people. Not sure guardian/Hammond has that figure right... that's more than 75k per purchase?
Grr... What does he think a huge demand-side driver will do to prices in a supply-constrained market? Very short term thinking I’m afraid.
I don't think that's right. It's a demand-side driver which favours one specific type of demand (first-time buyers). It is combined with other demand-side drivers which disadvantage buy-to-let and second-home buyers. So the net effect isn't necessarily to drive up prices overall.
But the H2B policy in isolation provides upward pressure on demand and therefore on prices. Better to spend £10bn (I assume of guarantees, rather than of actual cash) encouraging builders to build on land with planning permission. And have all government departments and quangos take a good look at their real estate holdings, releasing brownfield land for development where no longer needed.
Is this one of the mornings where all those people who were super-concerned about immigrants stealing local workers' jobs are going to tell the people concerned about robots that they're Luddites?
Meanwhile, employment levels are at all-time records.
I am hoping for a world where no one has to work for money - we all just make artwork and write novels, do science and get drunk. Robots bring us tasty food etc.
How many of our greatest paintings, novels and scientific discoveries would have existed if the author didn't need to make a living, do you think?
And yet Labour enjoys only a 1% lead over the Tories led by May according to the latest Yougov poll, a company which favours Labour -and that is before the Tories change their leader and preside over a better campain to get their own vote out.That lead is lower than that enjoyed by Kinock and Miliband. No opposition which has not been 15 points ahead in the polls between elections has ever gone on to win a general election with a majority. It seems to me that we are being set up once again for a suprising exit poll.......
Extra 10bn on help to buy... apparently helping 130,000 people. Not sure guardian/Hammond has that figure right... that's more than 75k per purchase?
Grr... What does he think a huge demand-side driver will do to prices in a supply-constrained market? Very short term thinking I’m afraid.
I don't think that's right. It's a demand-side driver which favours one specific type of demand (first-time buyers). It is combined with other demand-side drivers which disadvantage buy-to-let and second-home buyers. So the net effect isn't necessarily to drive up prices overall.
I think the main impact has been to artificially inflate the price (and stimulate the building) of 1/2 bed newbuild, high service charge, leasehold, flats.
In a recession/house price deflation scenario, those properties would suffer the biggest % falls IMO.
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
The problem is, which even liberals concede, is that there are so many guns and ammunition in America that if they banned them there would still be a massive arsenal in the hands of the criminals. So the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed but the hoodlums armed to the teeth, so who knows where that would lead.
But no one except perhaps the most extreme liberals (which sounds a bit like an oxymoron) is suggesting taking away all the guns. What they are suggesting is a reasonable set of rules for the purchase and ownership of guns - mental and criminal checks, cool off periods and proper licencing. These are not extreme suggestions and even many in the gun lobby support them. Yet none of this exists in Nevada.
There are plenty of countries around the world that show it is perfectly possible to have large scale gun ownership and at the same time have good sensible gun laws.
As with most centre-left converts to Corbynism, this article is just words. "Reskilling" via a new "National Education Service" for example. How? These are just meaningless platitudes. Better to look at what Corbyn, Mcdonnell etc actually said before they had to be more careful with their choice of words.
A Corbyn/Mcdonnell government will have economically catastrophic consequences for the UK. Probably also politically and socially too. For those who disagree, point me towards an economy that has thrived when such policies have been implemented.
On second thoughts, dont bother. There are none....
And yet Labour enjoys only a 1% lead over the Tories led by May according to the latest Yougov poll, a company which favours Labour -and that is before the Tories change their leader and preside over a better campain to get their own vote out.That lead is lower than that enjoyed by Kinock and Miliband. No opposition which has not been 15 points ahead in the polls between elections has ever gone on to win a general election with a majority. It seems to me that we are being set up once again for a suprising exit poll.......
No Government that started an election campaign 25 points ahead has ever failed to get a majority.
Alternately hilarious and terrifying to see Labour "moderates" now trying to make their peace with Big Brother Corbyn.
What about all those "principles" that made them oppose Corbyn in the run up to the GE? The lure of ministerial position and fear of Mcdonnell's goons seems to have done the trick.
In 1964 Labour was expected to get a landslide. It won a majority of 4. In 1970 Labour was expected to win a third term. It lost. In October 1974 Labour was expected to win a landslide. It won a majority of 3. In 1992 Labour was expected to be the biggest party. It lost. In 2015 Labour was expected to be the biggest party. It lost. In 2022 Labour is expected to win a majority......................................................
Alternately hilarious and terrifying to see Labour "moderates" now trying to make their peace with Big Brother Corbyn.
What about all those "principles" that made them oppose Corbyn in the run up to the GE? The lure of ministerial position and fear of Mcdonnell's goons seems to have done the trick.
True. I am a proud supporter of Labour for 40 years and will never stop opposing Corbyn who is the worst Labour leader of all time.
And yet Labour enjoys only a 1% lead over the Tories led by May according to the latest Yougov poll, a company which favours Labour -and that is before the Tories change their leader and preside over a better campain to get their own vote out.That lead is lower than that enjoyed by Kinock and Miliband. No opposition which has not been 15 points ahead in the polls between elections has ever gone on to win a general election with a majority. It seems to me that we are being set up once again for a suprising exit poll.......
No Government that started an election campaign 25 points ahead has ever failed to get a majority.
You underestimate Corbyn at your peril
Assuming that Corbyn was the reason for the Tories not winning a majority, rather than a terrible Tory campaign and Brexit. Also the Tories were not really 25% ahead. Most of the polls had an inaccurate methodology which gave them falsely such a lead.
I suspect that you are overestimating the false Messiah Corbyn and that it will all end in tears for his fanatical supporters. I have to say that as a lifelong Labour supporter, a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. Corbyn really is a disaster.
Comments
Says a lot about May that she wanted to get rid of him - but won't ditch Boris....
This is the sort of thing that UB will get rid of, whereby every hour you work will earn you more money. Doesn’t mean there won’t be teething problems with it though, especially when moving difficult and edge cases from the old to new systems. The govt do need to tread carefully on the rollout and be prepared to slow it down if necessary.
Yet unfortunately, I don't see anything being done about gun laws in the US.
The disproportionate (compared to the general population) number of minority prisoners is something that gets people riled up. The same people are not riled up by the even greater disproportionate representation of minorities in the medical profession, or the enormously greater disproportionate percentage of the prison population which is male.
Lammy's basic point (black people generally trust the police/system less and so plead guilty later, getting longer sentences) seems entirely sensible. The media broad brush of 'racism in the system' was as unhelpful as it was misleading.
Not sure guardian/Hammond has that figure right... that's more than 75k per purchase?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/10/02/tearful-gerard-pique-offers-quit-spain-duty-support-catalan/
What doesn't help is that Hollywood makes most of its money out of glorifying semi automatic rifles: "action film" is code for semi automatic rifle film. The films also portray these weapons as almost entirely harmless because the hero, armed with 2 pistols, invariably wipes the floor with dozens of sar wielding baddies. The infantilisation peaks in terminator 2 in the scene where Arnie inexplicably kills everyone without, for some reason, killing any of them.
If there are abuses in the system it’s from employers deliberately employing 3 people to do the job of 1 to avoid Employers’ NI
It's not surprising some young people turn to socialism with socialist levels of tax but without many of the benefits.
I am still surprised at how many senior leaders here, where I work, still laud employees on the basis of how late they are working in the office, and how early they arrive; "he's one of the hardest working people I know; he's always the last to leave."
For me, I occasionally, hear (jokingly); "we're lucky to get 4 hours out of you!", whereas I just manage my work so I can get it done between 8.30am and 6pm.
It seems to be self-sacrifice that is valued, not value-add output.
It'd be that which would slow the innovation and growth of the economy right down, combined with measures that discourage people taking risks and starting new businesses so they stick in "safe" salaried employment instead, which would gradually become sclerotic.
As is, the Tories aren't doing it, and seem incapable of any of the huge changes which look like they're needed, so it's up to Labour now, god help us.
It won't, except at the margins.
Americans would rather tolerate a massacre that kills dozens once every 18-24 months rather than lose their universal right to bear arms.
So it will continue.
He spent 3 hours rewriting a set of minutes because one person objected to the phrasing whereas I would have politely noted the feedback, and said I had better things to do.
It's not like that in many professional industries anymore, except as a broad-brush principle, yet we still charge and measure by the hour. So we all play that game.
Pretty sure it was 72 last week, so they must have some new younger members in last few days!
@Ishmael_Z Yep, there is definitely a thing of portraying guns/violence as glamorous within Hollywood, and that reinforces the gun culture within the US.
@tlg86 Hopefully we'll see some changes. It doesn't help that some in the US seem to see any kind of regulation of guns as some kind of attack on their human rights (yet oddly these same people don't believe healthcare is a right).
@Casino_Royale Agreed - that's one of the good things that has come out of the GE. Issues concerning young people, and the under 44s more generally are now at the forefront of British politics.
Admittedly, he's better in political interviews because he can actually answer a question.
There are plenty of countries around the world that show it is perfectly possible to have large scale gun ownership and at the same time have good sensible gun laws.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137941630405X
Table 1.
I've no idea if this is right, it seems rather unexpected.
NEW THREAD
slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/02/gun_control_ar_15_rifle_the_nra_claims_the_ar_15_rifle_is_for_hunting_and.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/what-if-the-second-amendm_b_9121822.html
A Corbyn/Mcdonnell government will have economically catastrophic consequences for the UK. Probably also politically and socially too. For those who disagree, point me towards an economy that has thrived when such policies have been implemented.
On second thoughts, dont bother. There are none....
In a recession/house price deflation scenario, those properties would suffer the biggest % falls IMO.
You underestimate Corbyn at your peril
What about all those "principles" that made them oppose Corbyn in the run up to the GE? The lure of ministerial position and fear of Mcdonnell's goons seems to have done the trick.
In 1970 Labour was expected to win a third term. It lost.
In October 1974 Labour was expected to win a landslide. It won a majority of 3.
In 1992 Labour was expected to be the biggest party. It lost.
In 2015 Labour was expected to be the biggest party. It lost.
In 2022 Labour is expected to win a majority......................................................
I am a proud supporter of Labour for 40 years and will never stop opposing Corbyn who is the worst Labour leader of all time.
I suspect that you are overestimating the false Messiah Corbyn and that it will all end in tears for his fanatical supporters. I have to say that as a lifelong Labour supporter, a Corbyn government would toxify Labour for a generation. Corbyn really is a disaster.