CornwallFox

We haven't got the full backs for Sunday league football

This is what people are missing: they're genuinely doing the hard yards on the big stuff.

If your idea is to dump weirdos on an island and leave them to fend for themselves on the outside of our society.... I've often wondered the same. But then I still think we should split the country in half, let Brexit supporters have one half, and the rest of us have the other half to rejoin the EU.

I think the reality is that most people aren't racist, in the sense that they don't really have an issue with colour etc (I'm hugely generalising and I'm sure there's plenty on here with lived experience that might say otherwise), but the issue of immigration isn't just about colour/race/ethnicity. I think it's seen as an issue of fairness - they've not paid in yet they get everything, very similar to the way benefit recipients are viewed. But as @Jon the Hatalluded to earlier, an honest discussion about immigration has never really been allowed. One side refuses to acknowledge benefits and calls those open to immigration traitors. The other refuses to admit problems and calls the other side racists. Because one side hasn't been able to air their grievances, when a leader comes along who might well be racist - he does blame literally everything on immigrants - he says things they haven't been able to and suddenly he's "talking common sense", socking it "to the establishment" etc. Both sides have some blame here to different extents. I hate the way this country has gone on this issue and the way the right has gone about it, formenting real social problems.

I hate to break it to you.... But he's popular BECAUSE he's a racist. Nobody will admit to that, of course. But you only have to read the comments on any news story about immigration or reform for it to be blindingly obvious.

Might get a few bargains if you do that

Korev. It's always korev. I love a cheap lager. Korev for the win. I do like ales, really enjoy a stout, but my go to will always be a cheap, relatively flavourless lager 🤣

The fact the £4bn surplus didn't take account of two policy changes and was actually a £3bn deficit is pretty telling I'd say. Was obvious from the first second it was yet another Tory/Tory press pact to try to smear the government, yet again.

Really appreciate all the input guys, really useful. Getting closer to taking the plunge on the house. It's 3 minutes from perranporth beach and location wise it's exactly what I've been looking for. I've not been down here as long as my username might suggest so getting my head around not having gas central heating like I always did in Leicester. My dad was a gas man so he'll have a fit when I tell him 🤣🤣

Cheers for that, the middle bit is what worries me! There is a wood burner in one room which supposedly warms the house if you leave the door open but I'm unclear on how great that effect will be in a large three bed semi

So is it good or bad in your view? Did you support previous discussion of it? I'm not a fan of this btw

What a surprise BBC News - Reeves did not mislead on challenges facing UK ahead of Budget, says OBR official - BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj0ngnkl2vo Questioned by MPs over the chancellor not mentioning the surplus in the forecast, Prof Miles said the £4.2bn, while a positive number, "was by a tiny margin", adding that the OBR was not actually looking for it to be interpreted as "this is very, very good news, there is no hole to fill - as people were saying". "I don't think it was misleading, for my own view, for the chancellor to say that the fiscal position was very challenging at the beginning of that week. "My interpretation was, and others might interpret differently, that the chancellor was saying that this was a very difficult Budget and very difficult choices needed to be made. "And I don't think that that was in itself inconsistent with the final pre-measures assessment we'd made, which, although it showed a very small positive amount of so-called headroom, it was wafer thin." Prof Miles added that the £4.2bn buffer would also have been reduced to minus £3bn because the OBR's forecast did not take into account the welfare and winter fuel payment U-turns made by the government.

Anybody ever had a house with modern electric heating rather than gas etc? By which I mean electric radiators etc, not a heat pump. House I'm looking at doesn't have mains gas - stuff like this is common down here - and so has electric. Great house and great location though so wondering how costly the heating gets?

I don't disagree with that TBF

No. Tbh if PSR hadn't been implemented we'd probably still be there too as we'd have been able to spend. But it was. And we managed it appallingly.

Wish we'd kept him another year

I think if I was reading the forum from afar I'd say most posters are left but it's the right leaning posters I tend to be in conversation with. Most of the reform platform - and to some extent the Tory platform - is identical to the BNP platform of 20 years ago. Some of these ideas ARE far right.

Another good result for the government that will go completely unreported virtually everywhere else. I realise I'm coming across happy clappy labour, but it's more I think there needs to be more balance so I'm trying to offer it.

Again though, if you're a business that sells kids toys, baby clothes, whatever really. If people on benefits have a little more to look after their kids properly - and if not include your local corner shop for fags and booze - your business will have customers with more money. That's good for you. It will allow you to sell more, profit more, pay more. This is where we need to stop looking at things in isolation. People on benefits having more money also benefits those not on benefits.

Firstly I'm not proposing this as a policy, just pointing out economics isn't the reason not to do it. Second, it's pretty much self funding. Something never talked about is that spending isn't all one way. There's a multiplier effect when government spends in ways which impact the real economy. Businesses thrive and invest, the original spend all ends up coming back in tax one way or another, plus additional revenue comes from business profiting, expanding etc. tax revenues can end up being 6 or 7 times the amount spent in some cases. The country has struggled because austerity removed spend into the real economy. Tax cuts to business will always be liked by business, but without people spending money you just don't get the investment and growth you need. You get that through people spending money. And you get that by government spending into the economy to provide some liquidity. There's a reason austerity led to higher taxes and higher debt.

In 1975 the top rate on earned income was over 80%, and on unearned income 98%. The standard rate of tax was around 40%. And no, that wasn't the reason for the issues of the 70s before you say it.

It's not economists arguing against that. People spending money into the economy, putting money into local businesses so they can increase their revenues and invest is all good for the economy. The only downside to it is political - people don't like it.

Firstly, every penny paid out in welfare is spent in the real economy. It's good for the economy. Second, increasing the child benefit cap will lead to less child poverty and therefore less future spend on a whole host of things in education and healthcare, council services, and lots of other things. You always want glib answers, never want to truly explore the more complex picture politics always throws up.

Historically yes

We can't keep looking backwards. I often think there's a time and place things work perfectly in football but it isn't often repeated. We need to move on from ex players or ex coaches/managers/recruitment gurus