Alf Bentley

Thanks, Macca. I can only answer by quoting Spike Milligan's response to (then) Prince Charles.

I don't have a strong view, but am inclined to be in favour of this change. It might encourage young people to become more interested in how they're governed and to feel they have more of a stake in society, at a time when things are increasingly difficult for young people in multiple ways (careers, housing, student debt, social media pressures...). But I absolutely agree that we should improve citizenship education in schools. It's decades since I was in school, but my daughter went more recently (21 now). My impression of her school provision was as you describe: some citizenship but limited, shallow and rushed. She has a fair degree of interest/info now, but mainly gleaned from friends, parents and her own online research. I saw the Tory spokesman opposing this due to the inconsistency between voting age and age limits for marriage, drinking alcohol, going to war, standing as a candidate. I find that disingenuous, selective and wrong. At 16, you can already join the army (but not go to war), get married (with parental permission), have sex and drink alcohol with a meal. At 17, you can have a driving licence. Anyway, I think it's reasonable to have different age limits for different activities - and older age limits for going to war, getting married without parental permission or standing as a candidate than for voting seem sensible to me, as more is at stake. Some of the other limits are grey areas. A lot of 16-year-olds may be under-informed, but so are a lot of 18-year-olds - and an awful lot aged 28, 58 or 88! I've just spent 4 weeks interviewing passengers on buses and have now started a bar job in a holiday camp. I've been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and amenable most folk are, but unpleasantly surprised by how thick an awful lot of middle-aged and elderly folk are! I think citizenship should be compulsory, expanded and given more attention in schools. Clearly, care would be needed to avoid political bias. But a lot of citizenship knowledge (how democracy works, as well as practical life skills like banking/budgeting, tax, housing, pensions) is politically neutral - and guest speakers from different parties could be invited into class to explain their basic beliefs.

Mistake on his part. Wrexham only signed Ward because they mistakenly thought he had a special affinity with their club. They heard that when he joins a club, he wrecks 'em.

I agree with most of what you say here, but am genuinely in two minds as to whether Farage is on course to win the next election. This link showing Reform target seats makes interesting reading: https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/reform-uk If the country is still in a mess (likely, I'm afraid), I can certainly see Reform sweeping through the first 200-250 seats, plus some more thereafter. But they'd need 325+ seats for a majority. Could they win in Mid-Derbyshire, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Reigate, North Cornwall, Shrewsbury, Cotswolds, Worthing, Cardiff North (the posh bit), Tunbridge Wells, Leicester East....because they'd need to win a lot of such places (though I suppose there's the possibility of a Reform-led minority govt - I presume only the Tories & Ulster Unionists might get in bed with them?). Of course, much will depend on whether the Lab Govt improves people's lives in the next 4 years - a phenomenally difficult task for any govt, given the state of the economy and global turbulence. It might also depend a bit on how Farage/Reform are viewed over that time - and they're now in control of numerous councils nationwide. If they fail to improve things locally (again, a difficult task given local govt finances) or get involved in repeated scandals, that could undermine people's inclination to vote Farage into Downing Street. Plus the SDP and UKIP have had high poll ratings in the past and folk have voted in large numbers for the Brexit Party, UKIP or the Greens at European or local elections, but haven't done the same in general elections... If things don't improve for voters by 2029, I'd agree that it's likely that Reform will win a lot of seats, but will they win power? That's what I'm in two minds about. I can see them winning most seats in the North & Midlands outside major cities, as well as impoverished ex-industrial towns and coastal towns, and socially mixed areas of the South (e.g. in Essex, Kent). But there are a lot of seats in major cities, in prosperous rural parts of the SE/SW and in Scotland (maybe Wales, to a lesser extent) that they might struggle to win. I'd also expect there to be a lot of anti-Reform tactical voting in seats that were known to be marginal at a general election. God knows what a hypothetical Reform govt would do in office, as they'd face the same problems as Tory & Lab govts. - Tax & spend: Slash taxes and public services, potentially harming a lot of their own voters while redistributing wealth to the rich, as per Trump's "big beautiful bill"? - Illegal immigration: They'd have less chance than Lab/Con of gaining international cooperation to reduce illegal migration, so mass deportations of small boats migrants to Rwanda or somewhere with some UK equivalent of ICE conducting raids or grabbing people on beaches? Always assuming things don't get even darker with boat sinkings or similar? - Legal immigration: Presumably they'd want major cuts here - and their voters would expect it - but what would happen to sectors with a lot of migrant labour like care, hospitality & agriculture? - Demographic timebomb: This won't go away, so would they alienate their own often older voters by major cuts to pensions and/or the NHS to fund tax cuts? - Net Zero: Will they continue to oppose this, when the majority of voters (even a lot of potential Reform voters) see climate change as an important reality that needs addressing?

I think Labour saw how, for years, the Tories in Govt apparently got away with blaming Blair/Brown for any economic problems - claiming they were due to Labour over-spending in office and overlooking the small matter of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. But they need to wake up to the public mood. It might seem unfair in that they genuinely have inherited an economic mess (partly caused by the Tories via austerity economics, Brexit, Johnson & Truss; partly due to one-off factors like Ukraine/fuel prices and Covid knock-on impacts). But the fact is that the public is not interested in who's to blame, they just want things to improve. To that extent, Starmer is probably right to keep going on about things like breakfast clubs, NHS waiting lists etc. I know it's irritating when we hear them time after time, but that's probably because we pay much greater attention than average to politics. Most people pay very little attention, so a claim may be made dozens of times, but they might hear it once. From a Labour perspective, their first year in power has seen far too much media coverage of stuff that's gone wrong, like the winter heating allowance & benefit cuts, and too little about positive changes (early stages, admittedly). Ultimately, though, Starmer & co have another 4 years to somehow achieve significant improvements in people's lives - improvements they notice. Otherwise, there's every chance they'll be booted out in 2029. I'm sure anyone who's being remotely fair would agree that's going to be a massively tough task, given the state of the economy and public debt, low growth, an aging population, climate change and external factors like Trump, Putin, the Middle East etc. Even if they govern brilliantly for 4 years (and their record has been genuinely mixed - good and bad - so far, I think), they might fail....

Absolutely agree with these posts. I got a greater insight into the contribution of care workers about 10 years ago, when my Dad was in decline with Parkinson's and mild dementia for 18 months. It wasn't just their willingness to do dirty and sometimes physically demanding work, there was also the specialist knowledge of techniques (I injured my shoulder trying to move my Dad at one point), their extreme patience - and, in several cases, their ability and willingness to see and relate to him as an individual. For 18 months, he had increasing levels of care support - increasingly frequent visits, then latterly someone living in. My brother and I covered alternate weekends - and I think I'd struggle to do such work on a full-time basis, mainly due to the need for consistent patience, rather than the dirty or physical work. The carers were from Tanzania, Liberia, Greece and Ghana. For that matter, my Dad's GP was a Greek Cypriot, his physio was Australian and his hospital specialist was 2nd generation Polish! This was in London, so that's not entirely typical of the nation - more British carers in other areas, including my first cousin. But certainly we'll continue to have a shortage of carers if, as a society, we expect people to do important, demanding work for low pay - and try to halt the flow of immigrant labour (though I accept that integration and English language are genuine issues). After my Dad died, my brother and I agreed to give a thank-you payment to the carers. But I'll still always feel that I'm in the debt of the Tanzanian woman and the Liberian man (the main carers) for the way they made my Dad's final decline so much better than it would otherwise have been.

The fact migrants come through countries that have ID cards doesn't mean they do so BECAUSE those countries have ID cards. I've heard the odd immigrant on TV comment about harsher treatment by the French authorities, but language and family/community connections are a big part of the explanation. We don't see a big influx from North or West Africa (Nigeria & Ghana apart) because migrants from those countries have stronger linguistic/family/community connections with France - or sometimes Spain or Italy - so are more likely to stay there. Likewise, there are strong existing family/community connections that lead many Turks or ex-Yugoslavs to prefer Germany. Aside from a few with existing family/community connections, many migrants say they come here at least partly due to the English language. Many, even from Syria, Afghanistan or Sudan, will have some English - now effectively the global Esperanto via the Internet & global US-led culture. The UK also seems to have a reputation for being more welcoming and less racist - a compliment, in a way, though whether it's still justified or remains justified in future is another matter. I've no idea whether it's easier to find illegal work in the UK than in other European countries. But it's certainly possible elsewhere - and even if it is a bit easier here, I find it hard to believe that countless thousands are prepared to risk their lives purely because it's marginally easier to find illegal work. If it is easier to find illegal work, that's an argument for stronger enforcement of legal employment - but that means reversing more Tory spending cuts, at least in the short-term, at a time when the Govt is struggling to fund much higher spending priorities... Looking at the wider issue - immigration overall, legal and illegal - the UK public has to wise up to the real choices on offer. We have an increasingly aging population, a low birth rate and (like most of the West) growth levels that have been low for several decades. If we don't want significant net working-age immigration, our options are limited: - Discover a way of boosting growth that no other western govt/nation has yet found (ironically, the US had one - at least partly based on mass immigration, legal & illegal) - Increase state pension age to 70+ - Increase taxes on most people (directly or indirectly) - Slash public services even more than they have already been slashed - Accept lower living standards Rejecting all those options as well as rejecting high net immigration will potentially leave our economy, society and democracy in a worrying place...

That's already been used, Godber, you nerk! Any more of that and it won't just be Mr. Mackay you have to worry about, it'll be Genial Harry Grout sending Crusher round for a genial visit. Could continue the 70s/Glam theme, though.... - HMP Bowie might encourage knife crime - The connotations of HMP Wizzard are too positive, but... - HMP Sweet....can't see hardcore crims wanting to be sent there

Pound notes?

Incy Wincy Spider would be a better option. As a web developer, at least he'd improve our online communications.

Some might see him as the Messiah, but he's been inactive for almost 2000 years and was crucified for the job he did last time. Might be a bit out of touch with the modern game?

"Currant affairs are my raisin d'être", says fruity Sultana. Cherry on the cake as she sets date for new party. Public doesn't give a fig!

Yes, I presume Starmer is trying to influence US decisions in his contacts with Trump. He was openly advocating de-escalation before the US bombings, but clearly didn't succeed in influencing Trump on that one! Ultimately, the US is economically, politically and militarily massively more powerful than the UK, so any influence will be minor....but not necessarily worthless, if it brings the odd benefit for the UK on trade or slightly moderates Trump on international issues. But given Trump's nature, open disagreement may become unavoidable at some point. As regards "letting him have the run of the farm", he effectively has that already on a global level due to US political, economic and military power - and to his 99% control of the democratic levers back home. The UK and others can only hope to exert limited influence. The challenge to his running of the farm will surely have to happen domestically in the US, whether it's through one or other element of the democratic system (if that persists) - Congress, courts, mid-term elections - or through popular discontent, potentially even civil war? Given the extent of US power and of Trump's current control over that power, I'm not sure there's an effective way for the rest of the world to challenge him. Other countries may exert some limited influence, but I suspect the severity of the consequences will depend largely on what Trump chooses to do (highly unpredictable) and on what happens in US politics - namely whether he remains in power, further increases his power or is subject to a successful challenge internally in the US...

Starmer has very different political views from Trump but our govt has adopted a political strategy of holding its nose and getting on with Trump as well as possible - because they see that strategy as being in the national interest. They can cite the mini-trade deal with the US as a modest but important gain from that. They'll also hope to exert a small amount of influence over Trump's foreign policy (much as Blair sought to take Bush down the UN route over Iraq - initially successfully, ultimately very unsuccessfully). Given the imbalance of power between US & UK and Trump's unpredictable, autocratic nature, any such influence will be minor - but not necessarily non-existent, as even under Trump the US likes to see and present itself as having allies, despite having the power to act alone. Yes, I think it is pretty much "standard UK/France reaction to American foreign policy". For decades, the UK has sought to exert global influence above its standing by acting as a bridge between USA and Europe, staying close to both and having some degree of influence over both - which requires some biting of the tongue over disagreements with the US. Whereas, France has sought to exert global influence above its standing by being a/the leading power in Europe - which requires less "spineless" tongue biting with Trump. Starmer's strategy for handling Trump has already put him into difficult positions - e.g. biting his tongue over illegal attacks on Iran. At some point, Trump may well act in a way that makes that strategy impossible and means Starmer has to choose sides between US and Europe. Worth adding that the UK's position is all the more invidious due to having voluntarily diminished our other position of potential international influence as one of the most influential nations in Europe, due to Brexit. Still, at least we got masses more money for the NHS and control of our borders, eh, Boris/Nigel? There's also the fact that France & UK have different systems of representation. Macron is French head of state, so his role is to symbolically represent France to the world (as well as leading foreign policy, but not most domestic policy - led by the French PM). Whereas, Starmer is UK head of govt, not head of state. His role is pure politics, foreign & domestic. Our head of state is King Charles, who was recently symbolically representing the UK to the world (and to Trump), in an understated way, by making an early visit to Canada under its new PM and making some carefully calibrated speeches about Canada's independent identity etc. Starmer's strategy on Trump is high-risk and may yet back-fire. But people suggesting he should just call Trump out or openly declare his actions illegal are being naive as to consequences. I mean, if I walked into a pub and bumped into the biggest, most violent, most unpredictable criminal in Leicester, it might be "non-spineless" of me to tell him what I think of him and his criminality, but it might not be a wise strategy with regard to consequences...

Both the original Tory proposals and the current Labour plans were presented as increasing tax revenues overall. I presume those projections were made after Treasury calculations taking account of all fiscal impacts including lost VAT revenue. I presume the expectation was that the lost VAT revenue would be dwarfed by increased tax revenues from those who lose their non-dom status but stay in the UK and pay more income tax etc. If Reeves is reconsidering this, it'll be interesting to hear on what grounds: because the Treasury figures proved incorrect or simply due to political/media pressure? The article says that actual data on non-doms is imminent, so that will be interesting, too - given the claims of the expert cited that most who left after Osborne's changes planned to leave anyway and were not economically active. The article makes the point that the property bubble at the top also impacts house prices further down the ladder - potentially affecting all house-buyers. Of course, there are limits to which "soak the rich" strategies can be effective. A high proportion of tax revenues have to come from people with more normal levels of income/wealth and any revenue gains from non-doms are not massive compared to overall tax revenues - and if you increase wealth taxes excessively, then you do risk losing wealthy people & businesses of importance to the economy. In a way, it's also unfair that the wealthy non-doms who DO end up staying in the UK and paying more tax are likely to be those who are earning their wealth here....but until such time as there are global agreements to tackle tax avoidance, wealth that it not tied to work/business/location can be transferred to countries with looser non-dom rules or to tax havens. It will be disappointing if one of the few minor attempts to get more tax out of the wealthy falls flat, given the massive growth in inequality over recent decades. Given that we live in a low-growth economy (like most of the West) with an aging population, it will merely add to the ongoing dilemma between public service cuts and higher tax for people on normal incomes - not a recipe for a happy society, given the cost of living crisis and the difficulty of achieving a step change in growth due to long-term structural trends (low growth since 70s, very low since 2008) and external factors like Trump's tariff instability, energy price turmoil via the Middle East or Russia, climate change expenses etc.

After a press campaign about millionaires leaving Britain, Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering a U-turn on non-doms policy. An interesting article here challenges claims that the policy is economically harmful - and says it should not be reversed.... https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/06/let-the-non-doms-leave-rachel-reeves "A common misconception is that rich people are economically similar. But there are two very different species: people who earn loads of money and people who have loads of money. People who earn lots of money typically pay a lot of tax. A banker in London on £600,000 a year should pay about £245,000 in income tax and National Insurance (assuming maximum pension contributions), contributing as much to the state in three years as the average Brit contributes over their whole working life. This makes them very important from a fiscal point of view. But it also means they’re less likely to leave when there’s a tax change, because they have a great job that it would be hard to get elsewhere, and because they demonstrably already tolerate a high level of taxation. And after the 2015 Budget [when Osborne tightened non-dom rules] , this is what they did: they stayed. The other species are different. They are simply parking their wealth here, paying little tax, and leaving when the rules change. Arun Advani, the economist who led this research, told me that under the non-dom regime, the UK had effectively been a tax haven for people who had money here but didn’t earn money here: 'Everyone thinks, because they’re very wealthy, that means they must be paying a lot of tax,' he said, but the people who left after 2015 were recognisable as being 'not very well connected' to the economy by income – 'but that’s also why they weren’t paying very much tax. So the cost of losing them is much lower.' It’s very possible that this is what’s happening now: we are losing people whose connection to the economy was fleeting and low in value. The stateless rich will be missed in some parts of London. Showrooms for ugly, dangerous cars will fall quiet; gaudy clothes with someone else’s name written all over them will go unsold; bad Mayfair restaurants and galleries for gaudy, laughable art will have to reconsider their value propositions. But the rest of us might benefit, thanks to the property market. Expensive London property drags the rest of the housing market upward, imposing trickle-down inflation on homeowners. It also eats into our housebuilding capacity."

Boooooooooooooooo!!!

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-trump/683078/ "Yesterday, President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard to quell disorderly protests against immigration-enforcement personnel in Los Angeles. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared his readiness to obey Trump by mobilizing the U.S. Marines as well. These threats look theatrical and pointless. The state, counties, and cities of California employ more than 75,000 uniformed law-enforcement personnel with arrest powers. The Los Angeles Police Department alone numbers nearly 9,000 uniformed officers. They can surely handle some dozens of agitators throwing rocks, shooting fireworks, and impeding vehicular traffic [...] [...] Since Trump’s return to the presidency in January, many political observers have puzzled over a seeming paradox. On the one hand, Trump keeps doing corrupt and illegal things. If and when his party loses its majorities in Congress—and thus the ability to protect Trump from investigation and accountability—he will likely face severe legal danger. On the other hand, Trump is doing extreme and unpopular things that seem certain to doom his party’s majorities in the 2026 elections. Doesn’t Trump know that the midterms are coming? Why isn’t he more worried? This weekend’s events suggest an answer. Trump knows full well that the midterms are coming. He is worried. But he might already be testing ways to protect himself that could end in subverting those elections’ integrity. So far, the results must be gratifying to him—and deeply ominous to anyone who hopes to preserve free and fair elections in the United States under this corrupt, authoritarian, and lawless presidency". Written by David Frum, ex-speech writer for George W. Bush....

Norway 3 Italy 0 before half-time....

It's only 9-10 months since I moved, but I've probably already forgot a lot ("How to move" books/online guides usually include a checklist). A few that I do remember... Between exchange of contracts and move): - Obtain lots of cardboard boxes and tape or tea chests, more than you think you need....you always need more...and get packing at leisure (unless you're posh and are getting the removals firm to do it) - You'll need lots of bubble wrap / kitchen rolls or whatever for wrapping delicate items; black bags to pack informal clothes? - Work out any furniture / large items getting dumped and book council collection or take to tip - Arrange redirection of post from move date - Brainstorm institutions you'll need to notify of address change, though some can only be done last-minute: utility firms, banks, credit cards, HMRC, insurance, pensions, employer, council tax, schools... Last few days: - Defrost fridge/freezer (unless leaving behind) - Identify "last minute packing" items: kettle, tea/coffee, some crockery/breakfast food, move day clothes, kids' entertainment (if long move) - Dispose of perishable food (unless you hate the buyers, in which case insert kippers under floorboards/behind radiators ) - Double and triple-check for items that might be left behind (back of drawers/cupboards, loft, behind furniture, garden/yard/passage...) - Contact removals firm to double-check all ok for move on agreed day at agreed time - Compile a file/batch of documents needed for action in final days or soon after move? - Notify utility firms (old place & new place, if possible) Move day: - Buy a few cold drinks/snacks for journey, unless moving locally? - Take photo/record of closing meter readings in case of dispute, even if utility firm has automated meter readings - Check all equipment left behind is turned off (surprising how easy it is to brush against a dial/switch) - Turn power off at mains (if property will be vacant for a while)? - Check doors locked and windows shut (maybe a few ventilators open, depending on security, if new resident moving in quickly?) - Drop keys with estate agent or whoever I'm sure I've forgotten lots of things.....definitely worth looking at checklists online or in a book, I reckon Good luck!

Partly out of piss-poor commitment, but mainly for financial/practical reasons, I've rarely attended away games. My last away game was the one I presume you're referring to. A dreadful League Cup game at Molineux about 7 years ago: 0-0 draw, won on penalties - Danny saved 3, or was it 2 and 1 blasted over? So, I can honestly say that at my last away match, Danny Ward was the match-winning hero and all the Leicester crowd were chanting his name.

Trump threatens to impose 50% tariffs on EU and 25% on Apple: https://news.sky.com/story/trump-threatens-eu-with-50-tariffs-as-apple-faces-25-unless-iphones-are-made-in-us-13373325 Harvard sues Trump regime for blocking enrolment of thousands of foreign students: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cje7ledqvyqo BBC Verify fact check on Trump's claims of white genocide in South Africa: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9vxve994ro So, South Africa is a murder-stricken nation, but there's no white genocide, farmers are a tiny minority of those killed, the inflammatory songs were sung by opposition politicians, the roadside crosses were not for graves and the reports he brandished at least partly related to murders of women in the DR Congo.... Still, I'm sure KKK fans among his voter base will have heard the subtle dog whistle... Just another day in Trumpworld....

Dream, baby, dream....

I wanna be well (run).....

Some hard-fought matches at home to him in the 1500s: Played Henry VIII & Thomas Cromwell up front and local fans over-ran his monasteries. Then he brought in Bloody Mary as playmaker and gave us a bit of a roasting. Last home fixture was an Anglo-Scottish Cup match in 1745, I think.