|
|
Post by nickpoole on Nov 23, 2024 8:02:25 GMT
It wasn't the Metropolitan Police's finest hour. In mitigation, the whole country was on edge and the chain of failure was accountable, even if unacceptable. Which might explain the shooting but not the cover up. That was pure institutional poison. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,748
|
Post by steve on Nov 23, 2024 8:04:48 GMT
Shout out for Aldi mini mince pies just £2 for 9.
Each one a tasty mouthful
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 23, 2024 8:29:01 GMT
It wasn't the Metropolitan Police's finest hour. In mitigation, the whole country was on edge and the chain of failure was accountable, even if unacceptable. Which might explain the shooting but not the cover up. That was pure institutional poison. My understanding is that there wasn't a cover up, and the notes and decision logs were shared at the inquest. The live intelligence that led to the decisions was fundamentally flawed, and a flawed decision was then made by Commander Dick. A cock up for sure, but they killed the wrong guy having followed an established protocol. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Nov 23, 2024 8:29:36 GMT
So let's focus on The maniac's pick as defence Secretary Pete Hegseth a totally unsuitable former national guard Major and fox news host. While in this role he nearly killed someone with an axe while drunk. He is an extreme christofascist white supremacist,misogynist and to no one's surprise at all it transpires he's another sexual predator, "A woman told police that she was sexually assaulted in 2017 by Pete Hegseth after he took her phone, blocked the door to a California hotel room and refused to let her leave, according to a detailed investigative report made public late on Wednesday. Hegseth, a Fox News personality and Donald Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary, told police at the time that the encounter had been consensual and denied any wrongdoing, the report said. News of the allegations surfaced last week when local officials released a brief statement confirming that a woman had accused Hegseth of sexual assault in October 2017 after he had spoken at a Republican women’s event in Monterey." While Hesgeth denied the allegation of rape he subsequently paid the individual an undisclosed amount of money and agreed a non disclosure agreement. The obvious actions of an innocent man. "The 22-page police report was released in response to a public records request and offers the first detailed account of what the woman alleged to have transpired – one that is at odds with Hegseth’s version of events. The report cited police interviews with the alleged victim, a nurse who treated her, a hotel staffer, another woman at the event and Hegseth. So a television personality ,a liar and a rapist. Remind you of anyone who might have nominated him. It's possible that Senate republicans might not select Hegseth but having dodged the bullet of having to oppose the dear leader's pick as attorney general They may well show their normal spineless supplicancy.Another great pick a WWF official as Education Secretary , sadly it isn't Hulk Hogan! That's a bit harsh - they didn't dodge the bullet so much as shoot the scumbag in the head. Interesting that Gaetz's people are citing Mitch McConnell as one of the Senators that basically said "no way, come what may". Seems a fair bet considering some of his colleagues that neither ethics nor safeguarding were McConnell's foremost consideration, and that there was indeed a degree of retribution involved. Also I think McConnell, who has stood down as leader and is so close to standing down altogether at the next election that he can't be bullied anymore and may have grown a bit of a backbone at last. |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 23, 2024 8:55:47 GMT
Shout out for Aldi mini mince pies just £2 for 9. Each one a tasty mouthful My partner said she liked the all-butter Aldi pies with Jamaican rum 👍 |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 9:02:15 GMT
As I'm sure you are aware large supermarkets have huge turnover and relatively smaller profits than some riskier businesses, namely because they have a more stable income base My point was Tesco's made their highest profit for 10 years, this year profits reached £2.83bn - up more than £300m from a year earlier, so around a 12% increase At the same time they claim going forward they will have to give lower wages and or cut staff going forward because of the NIC increase. I have noticed in supermarkets that special offers have returned. Which implies to me the fundamental profit on each can of beans is now significantly more like 50% of sale price again. When Tesco last had a profits crisis they responded to it by reducing their range of goods, which had become excessive. Aldi and lidl have a much smaller range of goods in very much smaller stores therby cutting their property costs and stock costs, and presumably increasing the volume on each of the fewer lines they carry. Some of their goods are significantly cheaper, eg 1/4 on generic goods, and supermarkets are price matching them on some items. Thus leading to the eccentric situation a larger can of food is cheaper than a smaller one in some of the big stores. Our local sainsburys seems to have plenty of staff, and of course they now have few manned checkouts, rather its mostly self service checkouts with 1 staff for a dozen tills. The switch to cards from cash will also have reduced labour costs in managing all that cash. All in all then, the big boys know how to cut costs if they need to, but they prefer to have more expensive delivery hoping customers will pay for a premium service. It would be interesting to compare the profitability of the medium size Bexhill Sainsburys to the Hastings sainsburys three times bigger, to see whether medium size of giant stores are actually more profitable. But Im sure its still about market share when there are plenty of rich customers out there who arent price sensitive. People need to remember the UK is a land of haves and of have nots, and any business has to figure how to appeal to both. Or choose a niche, and in general the big supermarkets are going for the rich.
I doubt NI rises will make any difference to pay. Which is determined by the market rate for labour and probably the minimum wage for the low end shelf stackers they employ. (even if its simply through maintaining a differential above minimum wage to retain staff. ) It will just force them to consider again their other costs, the most likely final outcome will be costs passed on to shelf prices. If it forces them to sack some staff, well again thats freeing up workers to build houses instead. |
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on Nov 23, 2024 9:11:08 GMT
Which might explain the shooting but not the cover up. That was pure institutional poison. My understanding is that there wasn't a cover up, and the notes and decision logs were shared at the inquest. The live intelligence that led to the decisions was fundamentally flawed, and a flawed decision was then made by Commander Dick. A cock up for sure, but they killed the wrong guy having followed an established protocol. There wasn't a cover up? The fake stories in the Sun? "Why did he run?" It really was hillsborough all over again, but instead of opening a gate they shouldn't have opened, they fingered a guy who shouldn't have been fingered. In both cases a lot of shit could have been avoided by an early own up. Of course Cressida might not have gone on to fuck up and cover up for years more at a higher level, but who is to say that would have been a disaster? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 9:16:18 GMT
Maybe someone will break out an electron microscope and find any remaining particle of civic duty in the republicans but I doubt it. While I dont think libs should now be pilloried especially for going into coalition in 2010 (stupid though it was, but more obviously so in hindsight), they demonstrated precious little civic duty during that period. And those are the ones you hold to be the good guys. If anything the libs line at the time was it was their civic duty to the nation to maintain in power a conservative government executing conservative policies, whereas its pretty plain Nick Clegg wanted some fun in Downing Street. In many ways very like Trump or Johnson or even May, who wanted a go at the top jobs. Or indeed Biden, who missed his chance when he was young enough to have been a dynamic president, but still insisted on having a go when he was really too old. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 9:26:54 GMT
It's all very tragic but I think people dismissing them are making a terrible mistake. Of course easy to not dismiss them but harder to find a solution You may have the key point there. Farage's USP is no more immigrants. Then other parties know this is a vote winner, give lip service to it, but fundamentlly both believe in continued immigration. They believe that if they halted immigration the consequences in terms of collapsing NHS and damage to the economy would cause them to lose an election anyway, so might as well carry on having the immigrants. Farage of course isnt in government, so doesnt have the option of ending immigration or face any consequences from doing it. But he can beat the other parties to death with this issue until he gains power. And his core vote probably doesnt care about economic consequences. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,748
|
Post by steve on Nov 23, 2024 9:27:11 GMT
Danny
I didn't think it a good idea at the time but given I was a member of the Labour party and voted Labour in 2010 and more enthusiastically in 2015 that's not much of a surprise.
I wouldn't post too many trips down coalition memory lane you'll get jib liking your posts can't be having that!
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Nov 23, 2024 9:28:22 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 9:29:09 GMT
The biggest threat is that the Tories go for a pact with Reform, either formally or informally, and agree to stay off each others" turf as it is. How? Either con truly end immigration (they see that as economic disaster if they did), or they agree to stand aside in a significant number of seats winnable by reform. Which is also disaster, because its allowing Farage to build his parliamentary numbers. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 9:42:04 GMT
Danny I didn't think it a good idea at the time but given I was a member of the Labour party and voted Labour in 2010 and more enthusiastically in 2015 that's not much of a surprise. I wouldn't post too many trips down coalition memory lane you'll get jib liking your posts can't be having that! I understand you desperately dont want to talk about that period. But labour too has tripped itself up suffering accusations of hypocrisy over behaviour it criticised by the previous government in office, which it now has been seen to do. Political parties accuse each other of all sorts of things. The problem is the public sees they are also doing the same. And then you end up with the winning party getting only 25% of voters supporting them. |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 9:45:47 GMT
I fully support handicaps for those that have become too successful.  The old ones are the best ones !! |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Nov 23, 2024 10:10:38 GMT
Sitting here with the smart meter display on the table, which was recently replaced after the old one packed up working a year or two ago. Its telling me I have massively exceeded my energy budget. It decided what that should be, and now the heating has actually been turned on, its telling me the nonsense I am using way more than I should be because I actually turned it on.
Quite why anyone is surprised people do not pay much attention to them, I have no idea.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,748
|
Post by steve on Nov 23, 2024 10:27:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 23, 2024 10:44:37 GMT
The biggest threat is that the Tories go for a pact with Reform, either formally or informally, and agree to stay off each others" turf as it is. How? Either con truly end immigration (they see that as economic disaster if they did), or they agree to stand aside in a significant number of seats winnable by reform. Which is also disaster, because its allowing Farage to build his parliamentary numbers. There was a pact, and a damned effective one, in 2019, where Reform - in their Brexit Party guise - stood aside in many Tory seats. Now a similar tactic wouldn't have saved Con in 2024, and Reform actually helped Labour (and Lib Dems) in 2024. But they are likely to be present in 2029 and they will strongly influence the debate on immigration matters and even the relationship with the EU, between now and then. Whether they will be in a position to cause electoral pain to the other parties depends on their popularity in 2029, which will be lessened by the other parties negating their likely manifesto. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 23, 2024 12:07:25 GMT
You may have the key point there. Farage's USP is no more immigrants. Then other parties know this is a vote winner, give lip service to it, but fundamentlly both believe in continued immigration. They believe that if they halted immigration the consequences in terms of collapsing NHS and damage to the economy would cause them to lose an election anyway, so might as well carry on having the immigrants. Farage of course isnt in government, so doesnt have the option of ending immigration or face any consequences from doing it. But he can beat the other parties to death with this issue until he gains power. And his core vote probably doesnt care about economic consequences. I think opposition to immigration comes in several overlapping categories. One is pretty much pure racism, drifting down into the belief, some of it true, some of it not, that immigration may affect wage levels, housing prices, housing availability etc. Then drifting down further into the argument of how sustainable our population is (I'm in this latter category on Green land, infrastructure etc). I think the Reform appeal is in those first two categories but I'm not entirely sure the Reform appeal is a single issue, although this is certainly one of their simple single issues that clearly appeals to a lot of voters these days. If you deal with the underlying issues of people in that second category on housing, cost of living, real wages etc then you can take a large chunk of that Reform vote away from them. Deprivation has always been a good hunting ground for the far right and we've had increasing levels since 2008. Labour current policy appears to be grow the economy and hope for trickle down, no different from what Osborne was projecting. That seems very unlikely to work too well for the deprived and while there was a certain degree of wealth redistribution in the budget this was only because they had a black hole they needed to fill. Can't really think of any of their policies designed to make the deprived less deprived with messaging they will be targeting benefits and with stuff like the WFA (which would have been fine if they had provided a safety net) and as yet unspecified cuts to government departments. Blair had the money to improve welfare whatever other mistakes he made on the economy, house prices etc and my, possibly faulty, memory thinks this was a relatively quiet time for racism. Not sure that we are going to see the same from this government given their focus on "working people". |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 23, 2024 13:53:36 GMT
neilj - "A fair and evidenced analysis of the numbers effected by Agricultural land inheritance tax...spoiler it's not many" All the independent analysts are agreeing with Reeves that few farms will be affected, and if they start planning, any genuine family farms would be able to avoid any serious issues. Someone upthread ( lens, possibly?) suggested phasing in the proposals over 7 years, to allow time for ownership transfer under the 3 year rule. If this was allowed for genuine family farms (eg single farms held by at most one couple) then I really don't see any problem at all. My guess is that farmers will continue to fight this, and I expect we are going to see them adopt the continental style farmer campaign methods, as there is a perception in farming circles that this works. I hope they fail. They've chosen entirely the wrong issue to fight on, but such is the irrational nature of much of the debate over IHT.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Nov 23, 2024 13:57:44 GMT
One for the energy discussions - www.fastcompany.com/91228839/the-surprising-way-this-potato-chip-factory-slashed-its-emissions?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-gbI've suggested for rather a long time now that the obsession with expensive electricity storage options is missing one of the big opportunities, namely heat storage, so this story is interesting. The ability to soak up excess power and store it as heat for as long as 2 weeks is very helpful, and if adopted at scale this would solve many of the supply/demand mismatches, even though it wouldn't qualify as 'seasonal storage'. there are options for longer term storage of energy as a way to offset seasonal imbalances already, however. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Nov 23, 2024 14:10:35 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 29% (=)
CON: 27% (+2)
RFM: 18% (=)
LDM: 12% (-2)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 4% (=)
Via Deltapoll, 14-18 Nov
|
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 14:11:12 GMT
I think opposition to immigration comes in several overlapping categories. One is pretty much pure racism, drifting down into the belief, some of it true, some of it not, that immigration may affect wage levels, housing prices, housing availability etc. Then drifting down further into the argument of how sustainable our population is (I'm in this latter category on Green land, infrastructure etc). I think there is an obverse to your first sentence-opposition to control of immigration comes in several overlapping categories. It would be interesting to debate those for a change. But that's not the purpose of this response to you. I would put myself into the category where you place yourself. But i think you have not covered all the key components in a "unsustainable" influx of migrants. Economic inactivity in UK is being compensated for by an increasing immigrant workforce. DWP this week released numbers showing that working-age adults in receipt of long-term sickness benefit number 3.8 million. Revised forecasts after last month’s budget indicate that by the end of the parliament that number will exceed 4 million, by which time the British state will be spending £63 billion pa ( +£4bn pa) on those deemed too sick to work. 2.1 per cent of GDP. An influx of workers has allowed businesses to substitute domestic for foreign labour, masking the underlying crisis of long-term sickness. Excess reliance on large amounts of foreign labour comes with costs: GDP per capita has stalled and -as you point out-public services have been put under strain. For the first two decades of the 21st century, UK had some of the lowest levels of economic inactivity of any rich country. Today Britain is the only G7 economy with persistently higher economic inactivity than before the pandemic. Since 2019 the proportion of British adults aged 16-64 reporting a disability has increased by five percentage points, compared with an average of two points across Europe. The crisis is acute amongst younger people. Since the pandemic, sickness claims made by the under-40s have risen by 150 per cent. Youth worklessness has risen to a 10-year high of 1.2 million,( ONS) There are 946,000 people aged 16-24 not in education or employment, up from 872,000 in the previous quarter and 20 per cent higher than before the pandemic.. The total of 1.2 million is the highest since 2014, when youth worklessness was falling steeply as Britain recovered from the financial crisis. In the last two years the number of young people outside the workforce and full-time study has risen by almost 400,000, an increase of 48 per cent. Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute,said “The employment rate of 18 to 24-year-olds not in full-time education has been falling for over two years. This is storing up trouble and risks long-term damage to their career prospects and the economy.” The Institute for Employment Studies said: “Worklessness, the combined numbers of unemployed and economically inactive people, continues to be a key issue affecting younger people." Liz Kendall's Pathways to Work plan is going to address this. imo it will be as important as anything in the Budget. Indeed one could argue that Reeves' economic growth objectives are reliant on it succeeding. |
|
|
|
Post by richardstamper on Nov 23, 2024 14:13:38 GMT
Sitting here with the smart meter display on the table, which was recently replaced after the old one packed up working a year or two ago. Its telling me I have massively exceeded my energy budget. It decided what that should be, and now the heating has actually been turned on, its telling me the nonsense I am using way more than I should be because I actually turned it on. Quite why anyone is surprised people do not pay much attention to them, I have no idea. Somewhere in the settings for the meter you should be able to set what you want your budget to be. |
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 14:38:36 GMT
|
|
colin
Member
Posts: 1,021
|
Post by colin on Nov 23, 2024 14:55:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 23, 2024 16:00:02 GMT
NeilJ
In your fair and balance reference to the BBC verify report on inheritance tax it now seems to have been rather biased, it’s since been disclosed that the “independent tax expert”” was in-fact Dan Neidle who is a Labour Party activist and City Lawyer . Since then the BBC piece has been amended with Neidles below 500 per year farms removed and his title of Tax expert removed and replaced to founder of independent tax policy associates.
This is the same person who has gone after Tory MP in the passed over tax issues ,it’s little wonder Starmer choose to quote the BBC had back his inheritance policy with his mate writing the script. Although quite why a Prime Minister should be seeking validation of his policies from the BBC is beyond me when his got a whole pile of civil servants in the treasury to do his bidding, insecurity perhaps.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Nov 23, 2024 16:26:50 GMT
NeilJ In your fair and balance reference to the BBC verify report on inheritance tax it now seems to have been rather biased, it’s since been disclosed that the “independent tax expert”” was in-fact Dan Neidle who is a Labour Party activist and City Lawyer . Since then the BBC piece has been amended with Neidles below 500 per year farms removed and his title of Tax expert removed and replaced to founder of independent tax policy associates. This is the same person who has gone after Tory MP in the passed over tax issues ,it’s little wonder Starmer choose to quote the BBC had back his inheritance policy with his mate writing the script. Although quite why a Prime Minister should be seeking validation of his policies from the BBC is beyond me when his got a whole pile of civil servants in the treasury to do his bidding, insecurity perhaps. Not sure if you actually read it, but I repost the link here www.bbc.com/news/articles/c789yggdxn3oIt mentions a number of people and organisations, including the Independent IFS, not sure it mentions Dan Neidle (who for the record was critical of Labour's 2019 tax proposals, saying there could be a £20bn revenue hole in its plans) Ftom the link "The CenTax think tank has studied the impact of APR and BPR reliefs. CenTax’s co-director Arun Advani argues that the government’s estimates of the number of agricultural estates likely to be affected by the capping of both reliefs at £1m combined - up to 520 estates a year - seems reasonable. “The data on historic claims are a much more reliable guide to the number of affected estates than surveys of farm sizes,” he said. “While the government's reforms are certainly likely to be difficult for some farmers, particularly given the many other factors weighing down farmer's incomes, numbers claiming tens of thousands will be affected aren't consistent with the evidence.” David Sturrock from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies also said that the Treasury’s figures were “credible” and added that including the impact of capping BPR “doesn’t radically change the picture in terms of estates affected”. |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 23, 2024 16:30:19 GMT
Colin
Re cop 29 when you have the worlds 4 largest polluters America China Russia and India refusing to stop fossil fuel production and the rest of the Western world bulking at the huge sums involved in achieving net zero you begin to realise how unrealistic all those previous COP conferences were.
It’s difficult to see no matter how you view climate change how any of the deadline dates from previous COP meetings are going to be delivered on time or even if there is the political will to do so. I suspect we will see the normal fudge and dates put back to the mid 2030’s and beyond as countries implement net zero if that is even achievable at different speeds. I know here in the states there is little appetite for net zero amongst the public as the US owes much of its prosperity to being self sufficient in fossil produced energy.
That’s not to say that climate change has been ignored, companies throughout the US have cleaned up there acts as far as pollution goes. But at the moment few people in the US see net zero as a way to save jobs and lower energy costs.
I personally think that’s why Milibands plans for net zero will prove to be far more costly and far less effective in reducing energy costs than he thinks. Indeed I would be very surprised if quite a large part of his policy is abandoned by Labour as the economy come under increasing pressure with there anti growth policies in the last budget. Net zero is dependant on growing the economy without that you simply can’t build the necessary infrastructure for net zero. You must be able to demonstrate that net zero means reduced energy bills or you won’t take the voters with you, I’m afraid that despite it’s good intentions people who are already struggling with the ,costs of living are not going to support some promise of future energy savings if in the short term energy costs keep rising.
|
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 23, 2024 16:38:12 GMT
NeilJ
I did read the article before I posted, basically it was a cut and paste from the governments figures , but even if those figures were anywhere correct that’s 500 farms per year not 500 farms in total and every year as farm land increases in price more and more farms will fall foul of inheritance tax. That even in this government life time could be several thousand farms.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,552
|
Post by neilj on Nov 23, 2024 16:45:06 GMT
NeilJ I did read the article before I posted, basically it was a cut and paste from the governments figures , but even if those figures were anywhere correct that’s 500 farms per year not 500 farms in total and every year as farm land increases in price more and more farms will fall foul of inheritance tax. That even in this government life time could be several thousand farms. It's not a cut and paste, the Independent organisations looked at real life actual figures It says 500 per year will likely to have to pay some inheritance tax out of 209,000 farms Big farms, many owned by very rich people to avoid tax, will pay it, the bigger the land holding the more they will pay That's the point of the tax! |
|
