>>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."

>>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.

>>89691

Do either of you lads have any data or sources on this? I would like to know the exact obligations and enforcement mechanisms.

>>89591
Moral of the story: The British public love bigots.

>>97679
What's that got to do with student finance?

Take me back.

>>98582
Seems like a couple of lifetimes ago.

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

It sounds like you're doing it right. Unless you're more directly involved or senior, your extra efforts are likely wasted beyond a point. As in, the first 10% extra you do is worth more than the next 10% extra that you do. Just arriving on time, meeting deadlines and exceeding them a little pays dividends.

>I've read quite a few things that suggest businesses in this country are far too short-termist and value a quick profit over longer term sustainability.

Well, you have to remember too that decision makers are bound by their own interests. We often have inefficient systems that could be easily improved, but not many managers would want to stand up and rock the boat, let alone risk ruin. Making a decision today that would significantly improve the company over a 20 year timeframe would probably look terrible on your record in the short term.

I've read and heard stuff about the short-term approach that is common here too. There seems to be a tendency to look at the figures at the end of the year and judge things by that. For example, minimum wage has gone up quite sharply in recent years. This has leant itself to companies cutting benefits and reducing staff numbers. For supermarkets I think this worked well, but for shops where innovations (self-checkouts) are harder, it's just stretched out a workforce.

While we may seem phlegmatic, it takes different forms elsewhere. In Italy it's incredibly hard to fire someone, so as soon as you get your contract you can do the bare minimum. If I remember, the Manx get priority for any job over others, meaning that they can be equally unproductive.

>I've read quite a few things that suggest businesses in this country are far too short-termist and value a quick profit over longer term sustainability.

I mean isn't this just the broader over arching ideology that we all toil under? Late stage/neo-liberlal/however you want to define it capitalism.

>>89531
I mean in comparison to other similar nations.

>>89536

Well yeah then we're pretty bad. Maybe not quite as bad as the yanks but that's not saying much.

Also for the record I agree with your perspective on productivity.

>Is one of the main reasons that productivity is relatively low in this country because workers know that their employers will treat them like shit and take them for granted?

Yep, of course. Because this;

>employers generally try and see how much work they can get away with piling on people for as little cost as possible

is evident to anyone with half a clue.

But then you have to ask why that's the case. Is there something particular to British culture that means it's worse here than other comparable countries. Probably yeah, there are probably all sorts of things that contribute to it. The states being the global hegemon and our unique relationship to them and their culture is I'd imagine a large factor.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>89531
On the one hand, yes. But on the other it's a recurring theme in British history. It's not uncommon that when the pound goes down in value British businesses just increase their prices abroad and suck up the extra profits rather than taking advantage of the fact their products are now cheaper abroad and expanding into new markets.

>>89464

Fair play, he's definitely over the limit. Three cans would put nearly any adult male over, mainly because they lowered it a few years back.

>>89465

Right then, I'll report the weaselly prick.

>>89466

He's drunk and I just saw him take a piss in the back garden. If he gets in his car I'm calling 999. What a fucking skank.

>>89467
Surely there is number for less urgent calls? Just call your local rozzer HQ and report him and his license plate. Dispatch will send a car out looking for him.

>>89468

>Surely there is number for less urgent calls?

101.

I've adopted a sort of syncretistic Discordian-Pyrrhonist-Gnosticism but I don't like talking about it much as I worry it sounds like I'm just taking the piss out of other people's beliefs when it's not really. It's compatible with ideas like
>but doesn't Godel's theorem also hold true if you accept that the results of something "god-like" could also be explained as entropy or chaos

>>89437
I've never looked into what our Quakers believe but I have a lot of respect for them from my interactions with them. Brave, peaceful people.

>>89438

As someone who's a year deep into studies on Historical Jesus and the origins of biblical monotheism in ancient Israel I can only say Poo Poo. But you do you, lad.

It's become fashionable to be agnostic these days, I feel, and atheism has become associated with those edgy, neckbeard fedora types. It's a tragedy if you ask me, because you have otherwise rational people excusing all sorts of nonsense brain-worms just because they don't want to look like a teenager from 4chan.

As far as I want to be able to give people the freedom to believe in what they want, I really truly can't reconcile how an otherwise intelligent person can practice faith, at least in the traditional, Jeduo-Christian/Iglooist way. It seems to me all too obvious that these religions in particular have, historically, been responsible for altogether more evil than good. Their very roots in culture exist as an early form of social control and manipulation, before we'd invented mass propaganda and the modern police state. Indeed that's the only reason they have become unnecessary.

I think it's a relic of our past we'd really be better off without. There are better philosophical approaches to dealing with the quandary of the unfathomable.

>>89427

People who beleive something anyway prove something they believe anyway, yet fail to convince anyone else. Is the best way of summing up Godel's ontological theorem. it is circular reasoning plain and simple.

>>89420

>I was a militant Christopher Hitchens style atheist

I really hate the equivocation of atheism with this brand of it, it seems like an oversimplified Americanism. And I think the prevailing truth suffers from political tit for tat for it being treated like it is a counter point to Christianity when it isn't and shouldn't behave like it is.

>>89328

That's not what my lad Stephen Bush said in the e-mail this morning - and I always listen to Stephen Bush.

(He is better at thinking than me, so I just let him think for me now.)

>Rishi Sunak will announce the biggest expansion in government borrowing in British political history as he approves a slew of infrastructure projects in his budget today, as he takes advantage of the era of low interest rates.

>And they're getting lower: the Bank of England has cut rates to 0.25 per cent in a boost to help the economy see its way through a covid-19 induced economic shock.

>Those two stories illustrate the benefit and the cost of the era of low low interest rates: on the one hand, governments can borrow more than they could in the past. The way that the British government structures its debt means that it may have even great wriggle room than many other states. But the downside is that when you hit an economic downturn, pretty much all the heavy lifting has to be done by fiscal policy, that is, through tax-and-spend.

>That reality is one reason why Sunak may be wise to avoid too much borrowing outside of infrastructure spending and measures to respond to the crisis - and that for all the talk of ending austerity, and the reality of increased spending for police, the NHS and education, the story for large parts of the public realm today will be the continuation of spending restraint rather than its end.

£104 less in NI next tax year. Wahey!

If the Tories under Johnson continue like this then Labour are absolutely fucked for the foreseeable future.

It's good to see them investing again, and you can certainly see this as a bit of a vindication to Labour's "we won the argument" mantra.

I can't help but feel like it's a bit late though. It's all well and good pledging money for infrastructure when most of it will just go into fixing the damage ten years of neglect has caused.

>>89332

They absolutely are fucked, but not because the Tories have nicked their politics. It's because Labour will do what they always do and piss about trying to position themselves as opposed to all of it, instead of standing up and saying "See? They've admitted we were right all along!" and driving that point home.

>>89332
So that's your council tax rise sorted then.

>>89589
A curious claim. Which Stuart-era age of austerity were you thinking of?

>>89255
I'm unsure of this claim. The roots of English in Germanic and Romance follow gendered language with the masculine plural as dominant e.g. Ragazzi means both group of male children and children generally in Italian.

While English developed gender neutrality, with limited exception, 'they' needlessly loses specificity (or brings confusion) which must be made up in context. This goes against the point of good communication in conveying information in as concise a way as possible.* Therefore these common folk in the 14-18th century were wrong. This is not to say that you should never use 'they' if not doing so would be rude of course.

*The whole sentence is awful:
>They sound like the kind of person who has made doing things out of spite because they are hurt into a lifestyle choice.
>She sounds like the kind of person who has made doing things out of spite a lifestyle choice.

>>89259
I believe Shakespeare himself used singular they in a couple of his plays. Chaucer certainly used it. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

>>89262

Was it contextually appropriate, like the character not knowing the gender of the person to which they were referring at the time?

>>89206
'Salted' is not 'Plain'.

>>89264
Yes it is.