Robo61

5 hours ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

I didn't receive my digital tickets in my wallet for todays game. 

 

What do people suggest I do as I'll have to miss the game 

Bit late now, but should have gone to the ticket office, they would have either help tou get the electronic ticket or have issued you with a paper ticket. 

16 minutes ago, Md9 said:

So they have invented a fifa peace prize just for trump so he can claim he has won a peace prize? 

A new low for Fifa, among many.  

30 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I’m not sure that people who end up voting for Reform will frame the decision in their own minds in quite the way you describe. That reads more like a projection. As the article says, the problem is the number of people who have lost so much faith in the mainstream parties that they genuinely believe that voting for a batshit party led by a con man offering economically nonsensical policies will deliver a better outcome for them. They are wrong to believe that, of course, but I don’t think their anxiety about the future can be dismissed as mere ‘abdication of responsibility’.

Given that the vast majority of those voting reform voted brexit,  blaming the current mailaise of the country on the current government is absolutely an abdication of resposnsibility.

9 hours ago, splinterdream said:

I don't know what type of Schools you went to or when, but I'm 50 and Schools i went to some kids were horrible, and we all said things growing up that aren't politically correct, but we were kids, it was a different time, to judge someone on what they said as a child is madness,what should be more illuminating is the hit piece being done on him, who else is getting this treatment? 

What all this does show with farage, is he's not good under pressure, he could have easily dismissed this with i can't remember any of that and we were kids anyway but he's stumbled and stuttered which has made him look more guilty than I think he is. 

Isn't that pretty much what he has tried to say.   Much more likely to have blown over had he issued a full and frank apology,  but just like Trump he is uncapable of such humility. 

20 minutes ago, danny. said:

Headroom and spending choices go hand in hand 

Then why only concentrate on one side of that choice.  As is usual with these debates no one wants to discuss the real choices this country faces.  Yes,  Starmer ans Reeves have political mistakes,  they should never have promised no tax rises at the same time as promising improvements in some aspects of welfare and public services,  but name one party that has been elected in the past that hasn't done similar.  As usual the dabate is concentrated on the tax aspects,  but not on the other aspects of the manfesto that require funding,  child poverty being just one of them.  It seems to me this country is no longer capable on an honest debate on these and many other issues,  as we have become addicted to low taxation particulat taxes on income.  

2 hours ago, danny. said:

Didn’t have to be that low. She didn’t have to change policy to pay for people’s 7th and 8th children. These are choices, and choices that she increases tax on working people to pay for. 

I didn't say those things weren't choices,  but the need for headroom clearly wasn't.  As for this choice,  labours manifesto promised to lower child poverty,  this measure will move that policy quicker than any other single measure could have done,  at the lowest cost.  The tories brought this policy in,  as an attempt to reduce the number of children born to poor families,  apart from that being unethical in my view (we shouldn't be blaming children for the choices of their parents) there is zero evidence that it has had that desired outcome.  It also did not only effect those families that couldn't afford to have those additional children (the media narrative) at the time the decision was made but also those (the majority) who later became poorer for no fault of there own.  

50 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

She didn't need to increase taxes.  At all.

That is not true,  if she had left things as they were there would have been a headroom of just £4b, the lowest in decades and would have resulted in the bond markets panicking.   

15 hours ago, lanefox said:

Awarding a throw in when Fatawu got tackled was the icing on the cake 

The linesman had put up the flag for ball being out before Fatawu was clattered into,  so the ref got that one right.  I agree though in general he was a poor ref.  

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Just outside the top 40 in terms of deaths per capita (the UK being around 20th, Japan and South Korea both outside the top 100 for a reference point).

 

Whether one thinks that's doing well is a matter for the beholder, I reckon. 

 

 

Its very difficult to make real comparisons from country to country,  as demographics play a huge part in success or failure in terms of deaths per capta.  Comparable countries to Sweden would be Norway/Finland/Denmark  all of whom did significantly better than Sweden,  so not sure it can be said that Sweden did well at all.  Japan on the other hand did particlarly well given their aging populations.   

8 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Ofgem being absolutely useless is lovely news to wake up to

What have they done??

Worth a watch for anyonre with real interest in tax policy

14 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Whilst this was undoubtedly true in times past, I think it becomes increasingly less true nowadays.  not the very rich anyway.   Lots of small business owners may be underpaying their staff and living a very decent lifestyle. But they’re not the wealthy that most speak of. The mega businesses who pay very average wages don’t belong to individuals any more. (In the vast majority of cases). 

Then how can you explain the ever largening gap between the very rich & poor of this country. Those mega businesses you talk about are largely built on modern tech, who got their original owners very rich indeed, that can only be so if they were not paying their workers what they werereally worth, I give you Jeff Bezos. The same mega businesses that are now paying their executives millions in wages while the tax payer foots the claim bill of their employees benefits.

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

 Sorry but I'm not a simp to the rich.

The wealthiest are wealthy because our economy has been set up to funnel wealth to the top and there's no longer a fair distribution between labour and capital. We've already let them take more and more of the wealth of the nation. I'm not then running scared of threats to leave. 

I'll repeat, let them go.

I wish sometimes people would sit and think about how the rich actaully make their money,  increasingly its done by paying people to do work for peanuts.   So who then is the really paying the tax of the rich.  The majority of people now on UC are in work,  the real beneficiaries of those benefits are therefore employees who are not paying wages sufficient to live on.  

25 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

When I’m talking ‘nett zero’ I’m thinking electric cars, heat pumps that don’t work and things that cost the user thousands which we’re being forced into with no say whatsoever.

The last three General Elections have been won by parties promising net zero.  PS electric cars are great and way superior than ICE in most repects. Modern heat pumps do work.  

4 hours ago, JonnyBoy said:

Incorrect, the house prices won’t fall, even if they did would be marginal and still price out some first time buyers 

If landlords are going to sell up,  then who is going to buy them up.  I am confused by what you are claiming,  the number of houses available to either rent or buy is not going to change as a result of landlords selling up.  

9 hours ago, JonnyBoy said:

It won’t. Will mean landlords will sell up due to renters rights bill and more power to the renter, the supply falls, demand increases and prices rise for the renter. 

That is not how the housing market works. You cannot look at renting in isolation to home ownership.  Landlords sell up,  house prices drop,  those that were renting buy,  demand for renting reduces.  

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Perhaps the trickling is the additional 200k people that are 'employed' by the state on benefits due to unemployment.

 

There are also 1.1m additional people claiming UC since labour came to power. So there is that trickle too.

That is strickly speaking true ,  but a very large part of that increase is due to claimants moving from legacy benefits to UC,  so is not a true reflection of what is happening.  Lies damn lies and statistics eh.  

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

This is correct.

 

The Chancellor does not do the maths.  Whoever the Chancellor is, makes the decision.  Often, they are tough decisions and rarely will everybody from business and the wider public agree that a given decision is a good one.

 

Rachel Reeves will have been presented with a list of options to raise money for the nation.  It is very likely that all options are crap.  It is a very common tactic for these decisions to be tentatively made in the weeks leading to a budget and deliberately leaked to the press to measure public opinion.  If it looks like the option will be a major vote loser, they won't do it because they want to stay in power.  Sometimes they will use the tactic to present something very bad, then deliver something less bad - it can actually be a vote winner.

 

Make no mistake, these decisions, whether blue team or red team are made with votes in mind.  Actual finances are a secondary factor.

What is really crazy is that they are not learning from their mistakes on this front,  being too tentative is proving to be a vote loser all round.  

2 hours ago, kenny said:

The smarter option would be to help businesses and encourage growth. Reducing NIC would be a good place to start as would business rates.

If that puts the public finances at risk or further austerity it will not encourage growth at all and will probably spook the bond markets leaving us in a still worse postion.  This merry go round has been going for some 15 years,  it needs to change radically,  Unfortunately,  while I think this government have done a number of things that will improve things at the margins in the coming years,  it is doing no where near enough to make a real difference to peoples lifes.   

2 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Doesn't sound like working with dedication and integrity every day!

You do know that its his son that plays golf everyday and not Rudkin,  and he is very dedicated to his golf getting his handicap down to +4 despite having only taken up the game about 4/5 years ago.  I expect he will turn pro when he has finished his studies.  

3 hours ago, sharpylcfc said:

Is there even a point to LIV anymore then? They might as well all just go back to the PGA Tour at this point, not that I'd blame the PGA if they'd turn round and say we don't want you back.

No,  with the exception of the prize money available for largely second rate players.  It seems that going to 72 holes is an attempt to get OWGR points,  though will in my view take further changes to the qualifying criteria in for it to be succcessful.  If they were to get world points then I would expect them to attract a few top players.  

53 minutes ago, Permafrost said:

One question (if using the official ticket forwarding) - does the person you're forwarding it to have to be a member?

No,  but they do need to have an account. 

2 hours ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

Really - He was chancellor for 5 minutes - this chumps been in 16 months and is destroying the economy 

And he managed it in five minutes.  We need to wait until the end of her tenure bwfore we can truely assess where she stands in that league table.  Especially given non of the last half a dozen have improved the lifes of the average citizen.   

12 hours ago, danny. said:

Not sure why it’s the U.K.’s responsibility to i.e. improve the Albanian economy to stop economic migrants coming from there via small boats. It’s up to each country to sort out their own economies and I don’t believe it’s the jurisdiction of a sovereign nation to fund the economies of other sovereign nations.

 

As I said to leicsmac, though, I suspect this isn’t something we’ll agree on! Maybe there could be a voluntary tax scheme where people of the mindset that you and leicsmac have could pay additional tax that can go to other countries to improve their economies. 

Have you never heard of charities.