>>90166
>How on Earth is a demented bastard like Claire Fox going to end up in the House of Lords?

I mean, why not invite a revolutionary communist into the HoL at this point?

>Tell me that wouldn't be better than the current shambles?

Better to have demarchy address the problem of the Commons. You don't kill a snake by nibbling at its tail.

Juries are citizens selected at random to adjudicate on a person's guilt, as advised by the judiciary and clerks of the court. Magistrates are the same except you apply to be one. Why can't we apply a similar system to the Lords?

>>90172
Have thought a lot about becoming a magistrate.

>>90169
>Trouble with that is that you're asking 300 random nobodies to read through new laws line by line, understand them in the context of existing law, and suggest amendments.
I doubt the existing lords do that on a regular basis.

>>90169
You could probably get the same quality of scrutiny by having the parties appoint a few tens of lawyers and having them explain the gist of the legislation and answer any questions the members have. "Do people actually want this law?" seems a more relevant democratic concern than "is this good law?", and far too often the position of the Lords seems to be opposed to the democratic side of the equation (that is, opposing laws people want or supporting laws that they do not) without much counterbalancing "Actually, with the way you've worded this you'd make it a criminal offence to have been born in Dorset, so we'll have to send it back for revision."

>>90177
>Meanwhile Biden's still essentially running the "I'm not Trump" non-campaign.

It's a very different political system there - that is literally all he has to do now to win.

>>90177
>He's just signed an excutive order to continue unployment insurance at $400 a week

He's signed a non-legally binding order to contribute $300, if the home state that person lives in agrees to contribute $100. Most of them can't afford to do that. The devil as ever is in the detail.

>>90177

That wouldn't harm the Democrats much, if anything it'll probably help them. American politics in general is radically to the right of ours, this is not analogous to Labour challenging the Tories on over-generous benefits. Giving out free money is commie talk.

>>90181
>Giving out free money is commie talk.

On the contrary this isn't a controversial tool in America at all. It's popular like tax cuts with the same collective dissonance based around rebates which is why Bush isn't viewed as a socialist for his 2008 stimulus package. It's a different system entirely.

It's not like here where you pay absurd taxes in a low-wage economy that typically disappear up the arse of a banker/"community leader".

>>90182
The UK has pretty low tax rates compared to European standards.

>>90123
What's False

Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/

What's disingenuous about it?

>>90124
Sigh. I find Trump abhorrent but that doesn't mean I'm happy for people to distort what he's said, particularly when there's more than enough legitimate things to criticise him for, just because they're on my "side".

“Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus. You know that, right? Coronavirus. They’re politicizing it. We did one of the great jobs . . . They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But you know, we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We’re 15 people [cases of coronavirus infection] in this massive country. And because of the fact that we went early, we went early, we could have had a lot more than that . . . we’ve lost nobody, and you wonder, the press is in hysteria mode.“

So Trump's language is vague as if to say 'it is a hoax' or if it is 'a new version of Democrat tactics'. He also says though that the Democrats politicised the issue, and says there is news hysteria because of 15 cases. It is of course important to frontrunner reality so by the time there are 4 million cases and he has told people to liberal cities under lockdown and discouraged wearing masks it is normalised and 'they' started it.

>>90127

Trump's nebulously vague manner of speech is what makes him an accidentally great politician. It's a gift to the Republican party because there's plausible deniability on anything he says, no matter what. You can never pin down exactly what the fuck he's on about, because there's often little genuine meaning at all to be ascertained from this type of fragmented, slurred stream of consciousness. It's a lot like how drunk people talk.

>>90128

>>90128
>It's a lot like how drunk people talk.

This really struck me, you're absolutely right.

There's one thing I don't get and maybe you lads can clear it up because I can't be arsed to Google. I really don't understand how it's allowed that anyone in a government position can accept money from bodies in Russia. Surely this is compromising straight from the get-go? For instance, shouldn't it be concerning to everybody that the Tories have received and continue to receive thousands from Russia?

>>90069
>shouldn't it be concerning to everybody that the Tories have received and continue to receive thousands from Russia?

You would think so wouldn't you. Our press/media are very good at shaping stories and omitting what is best not noticed though. Our elites have had centuries of practice.

Sage for /boo/ talk.

>>90068

Any chance of not being so cryptic mate? Surprised in what way? It's Friday night on a quiet grey little image board. Spill the beans!

I can only assure you I'm very much just a curious prole. Fuck knows who else lurks though obviously.

>>90070

They don't even care anymore because there's no-one capable of shaming them.

>>90073
I have been wondering how easy it'd be to become a journalist for my own shite rag just to get on the front lines to relentlessly grill politicians.

>>90041

She had Fat, Droll and Female sewn up, but even all such as ARE STEW could outgun her in all three of those criteria these days.

>>90034
>We are invited to hear claims about how much she drank, what a difficult personality she had, how she used to start arguments, as if any of this is relevant to the question of whether Depp ever abused her. It isn’t.
Erm, it is, Jess. We now know that Amber Heard was a manipulative and abusive partner. It's legitimate to examine whether the claims of being abused were part of her pattern of abuse towards Depp. If you are being beaten and abused, lashing out in retaliation is fair game.

>>90043
There's also the key fact that the whole reason this trial is happening is because of material released by Heard.

>>90044
It's actually a very interesting case - all the court transcripts and evidence so far point to Ms Heard making a great deal of shit up. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. #metoo

>>90045

The #metoo thing was all but entirely discredited after the shitshow of the Democratic primaries. They let the mask fully drop.

Jess Philips is a rare real life example of an actual misandrist though, it's entirely unsurprising she'd view things through this lens. She's a direct mirror image of those blokes who say wearing a short skirt means a woman is asking for it.

>>90006
Inflation has only been higher than returns from the average ABI Global and ABI Mixed Investment 40-85% Shares pension fund net of fees in two of the past ten years, the twelve months to 19 June 2016 and 2012. Even with the dot-com bubble, the financial crisis and shitting the bed over coronavirus the returns of your average global equity pension fund are roughly double that of inflation; if I wanted to cherry pick then over the past 10 years the ABI Global sector average has returned 135.03% compared with 30.39% for inflation.

If you'd have a negative return after inflation and fees then there would be no point whatsoever in investing. Are you on about cash interest rates? You're not investing your pension in a cash fund are you? That would explain a lot.

>>90007
Mmm, 50% better than inflation. That's not really that good, is it? And that graph is at somewhat of a high point, and I suspect about to go down a bit.
You're not making a compelling case for pensions having been a good investment (except for free company money, which is great but isn't always on offer).
The payments I made over the first 10 years of my working life will get me maybe three extra weeks in a private care home before running out of cash. For that benefit, I was a bit more strapped for those years, and had to make the expensive compromises that being broke entails.
I think that the 'save into a pension early, compound interest is magic' line favours the pensions industry far more than it favours the saver.
(If your pay never really goes up over time, it may look different? As it is, the amount I paid in back then, and the effort it took, just seems to have been wasted. More goes in each month, than that decade got me.)
Just working harder / getting more qualifications / being less broke all seem to be better investments in hindsight.

>>90008 Edit: not more each month, I wish. Every few months.

>>90008
>except for free company money, which is great but isn't always on offer

Yes it is, thanks to auto-enrolment. Employers have to contribute to a pension.

That 20 year snapshot is only applicable if you invested all of your money June 2000 and took it all out in June 2020, which won't be the case for people regularly saving into a pension. As I've said, you can change the time frame to suit your argument (pic related) but with compounding the longer you've invested the greater its effects, which is why the curve steepens.

Compounding works best when you have a large sum for it to be applicable to. For the overwhelming majority of people this means starting early and building the sum up this way. It may be different for you, but "opt out of your pension scheme and pass out of free money so you can instead use this money to help you work harder and advance your career" is terrible advice for the majority.

>>90010 Compounding works best when you have a large sum for it to be applicable to.

Having lots of money is often a good starting point for having lots of money. Bootstrapping's a bitch.

(I'd forgotten about auto-enrolment, good point, and it may well make things less crappy for the young / low waged than it used to be.)

>>89952

If a word filter for SURF causes words like inSURFere to break then this might be the worst worldfilter yet.

>>89954

Disagree.

>>89954
Don't be so bitSURFul you fragile butSURFly. It's no clusSURFuck or splatSURFest, you just have to inSURFace better. CounSURFeit your words. Then you'll have a masSURFul post worthy of winning a quarSURFinal, as robust as buckminsSURFullerene.

The German system is not too dissimilar, though the implementation is not quite the same. While there's no NI contribution there is instead a delightfully German word: "Krankenversicherungspflicht", which idiomatically translates to "insure yourself or we will do it for you". There's some additional paper work on top of this about the insurance institutions, e.g. you are in the "state system" by default but if you ever opt out[1] you cannot (usually) rejoin. For the end user it's not too different: if you need medical help, you can get it at nominal cost. If you want expedited treatment, your insurance or ability to pay matters.

So for these two examples, the reason Germany hasn't replicated the NHS is because the outcome is much the same. The same jokes about NHS treatment in the UK are being made about AOK treatment in Germany.

[1] Because you think you can do better in the private system.

I believe there is such a thing as a "best of both worlds" approach that mixes private and public healthcare. But I think you'd have to be very careful to make sure the competitive element of private providers stays, you know, competitive.

Despite the NHS being extremely cost effective, it currently has a horrible relationship with private contractors. PFI for instance is an unmitigated trainwreck. I can't help but notice the government has taken advantage of the covid crisis to drastically expand this relationship too- Instead of upgrading NHS lab services, they have instead outsourced and handed money to contractors to build new facilities. There's been understandable concern about oversight and accreditation in these labs, whereas the NHS has a very good track record for accuracy, auditing and accountability in its own.

The most important part is having things remain free at the point of access, I'm less concerned about who provides it than it being available, and not being a black hole for taxpayer money like a lot of private-public partnerships.

Did what a dad would do for his kid. It's absolutely nothing to do with his mastermind of Brexit and helping the Conservatives achieve the largest majority since Thatcher. Or was that Corbyn. Gonna be an overblown media frenzy made up bullshit backlash somewhere. And absolutely nothing to do with Mark Sedwill.

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/ian-blackford-mp-called-a-hypocrite-over-600-mile-trip-during-lockdown/

>>89942
Misery guts.

>>6158

Is this >>89942

>>89943

How do you explain the trip to Barnard Castle, which coincidentally fell upon on his wife's birthday?

They knew they were in the wrong, his wife even wrote an article in the Spectator pretending to be isolating in London.

He broke the rules first time, by returning to work after feeling better rather than isolating for the correct amount of time.

Blackford is whataboutism.

Man who reported second Dominic Cummings trip admits he 'made that up'

A man who claimed to have seen Dominic Cummings in Durham for a second time in April has admitted that he made it up, according to reports.

Tim Matthews said he altered figures on the popular Strava running app to make it look like he had seen Mr Cummings in Durham on April 19, after the PM's aide had returned to London from his first trip.

His claim was reported in the Guardian earlier this week. But he told the Mail on Sunday: "I made that up afterwards, a few days ago in fact. I modified it for a little bit of comedy value. I undid it later, I’m sorry. A bit of comedy value even if it was really inappropriate."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/dominic-cummings-second-trip-made-up-a4455501.html

>>89737

Oh, for those halcyon days of being bored of Brexit instead of being bored of a global pandemic.

The transition agreement ends at the end of the year, the government say that they won't countenance an extension, but it's all fine. Everything is fine. Remain indoors.

>>89736
I don't yearn for it, everything was bleak as fuck back then and there was looking like no end to the misery. At least the 'rona has shaken everything up. I'm bored of it myself by now, of course, but the future post pandemic is going to have some interesting times.

It's funny, it's a sentiment I've seen posted here before, and I've sometimes echoed myself. What we need is a good plague, clear out the cobwebs and shake up the order. Now we've got it, and it's been both worse than we'd ever have imagined and yet more disappointing.

>>89736
Ah you bastard. Why did you have to remind me how close Bernie came to winning the nomination.

Bored of Brexit now bored of flu hysteria...

>>89741
bored of cranking my hog

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>89731
Before the virus came along, I thought he was a shoo in for the election because Americans, stupid etc. Now I'm quite sure that at the current rate of "progress", he is absolutely toast.

>>89731
What do you mean how does it work? You put a bet on it just like anything else. Go to a bookie's website.

>>89030
I bet you would.

>>89034
That's from the Renaissance lad.

>>89035
You're still a bummer.

>>89036
Takes one to know one.

>>86935

What did you mean by this.

>>89685
>It's really quite baffling they never thought of it sooner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Romania retains a lot of its communist governmental inefficiencies, so it's easy to see why it's stagnant. Pair that with less social freedoms and it doesn't seem a very appealing place, especially when you can easily move to a 'better' nation.

It's not neo-colonial or unethical to offer a better deal. Romania could improve itself for the betterment of its people but it isn't. A country can fuck its own people over much more than 'the big bad rich ones'.

>>89689
It's a bit hard for the country to improve with such a massive brain drain.

>>89687

>you do realise that the British student finance system has no obligation to continue payment once you move abroad?

I don't realise that, because it's not true. You still owe the SLC money and you're obliged to return an Overseas Income Assessment Form if you leave the country for more than three months. The SLC has information-sharing agreements with many European governments and while they have limited ability to enforce repayments in many countries, they can and will pursue you if you ever return to the UK.

How time flies.

I don't earn enough to pay income tax, so mine is easy to calculate: for every £1 I earn I get £1.

>>89596

If you were on the higher rate you'd have 9p taken off for your loan, so the difference for you would be 10p. Is your problem that a low rate payer (with student loan) would effectively pay the same as a high rate payer (without loan)?

The tax system isn't that complex to wrap your head around and as I understand it's like that because of how it's been done historically (to combine NI and income tax would make sense but is practically a minefield). Certainly, it's not complex enough for the misguided belief 'I won't take a raise because I'll pay more in tax'.

>>89598
It was a bit of guesswork; student loans have been going for about 22 years so they won't be applicable to most over the age of 40 and people tend to have their highest earnings later in their careers, as well as that most people who are higher rate taxpayers and have a plan 1 student loan will have either paid it off or be very close to.

I know people who think the moment they reach the higher rate tax band all of their income above the personal allowance is taxed at 40%, meaning you lose money at first, which I've never understood.

>>89598
>'I won't take a raise because I'll pay more in tax'.
It's rare, but it's certainly possible to lose out on a raise. When the UEL and the HR threshold have been in different places, it's been possible to find yourself in a position where you pay less tax if you get a bigger raise.

I once lost out on a raise twice in the same year. Working in the NHS, I hit my anniversary and gained a point, but it took me over a pension threshold and so I ended up taking home less. A couple of months later, we got the annual 1% raise, but at the same time lost the contracting-out discount for NI. As a result, my gross salary was around £2k higher, but my take-home was around £50 a month less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EDtys1sIq0

>>89570
this meme doesnt fit with this well tbh

>>89570
this meme doesnt fit with this well tbh

(A good day to you Sir!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4NmtSrqtvI