LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
My outlook is - They are working, I’m on a jolly. Suits me fine to pause, have a drink and take in the view. Mutual waves means the next cyclist may receive some courtesy.TheBigBean said:I've never had a problem with farmers, but then I understand the hassles they face, and I'm sympathetic to the point of view that someone who chooses to live in farming country because it's pretty should probably accept that will result in inconveniences due to farming.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
My outlook is - They are working, I’m on a jolly. Suits me fine to pause, have a drink and take in the view. Mutual waves means the next cyclist may receive some courtesy.TheBigBean said:I've never had a problem with farmers, but then I understand the hassles they face, and I'm sympathetic to the point of view that someone who chooses to live in farming country because it's pretty should probably accept that will result in inconveniences due to farming.
I could put it in the annoyances thread about people who buy a house in farming country then complain that farmers work at weekends and that cattle make noise outside of office working hours.0 -
Mutual?pblakeney said:
My outlook is - They are working, I’m on a jolly. Suits me fine to pause, have a drink and take in the view. Mutual waves means the next cyclist may receive some courtesy.TheBigBean said:I've never had a problem with farmers, but then I understand the hassles they face, and I'm sympathetic to the point of view that someone who chooses to live in farming country because it's pretty should probably accept that will result in inconveniences due to farming.
Pop around here and see how you get on with that. Even when you stop and wait or get out of the way, you are a basterd townie for being there in the first place.
Besides, when someone around here is verbally abused by our local farmer, or he decides to damage something to make a point, the victim is normally actually at home, so it's slightly different isn't it?0 -
FA, sounds like 'your' fairmer needs a wee visit, for tae explain things to him.
I live in an agri area, use the back roads a lot, hence encounter tractors, trailers, pickups et al frequently. I'm perfectly happy with pulling in to let them crack on, usually get the acknowledge wave, even from the contractors working at full speed.0 -
0
-
We do wonder if he's one or both of bipolar or schizophrenic.orraloon said:FA, sounds like 'your' fairmer needs a wee visit, for tae explain things to him.
I live in an agri area, use the back roads a lot, hence encounter tractors, trailers, pickups et al frequently. I'm perfectly happy with pulling in to let them crack on, usually get the acknowledge wave, even from the contractors working at full speed.
He's also a classic bully, so if you invite him out of his tractor to continue a discussion, he scuttles off.0 -
kingstongraham said:
Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.0 -
He has literally been trained to act like that.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.0 -
First.Aspect said:
He has literally been trained to act like that.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.
Could the real Sunak be any worse? I've seen better and more credible performers in the local village hall panto.0 -
Can you imagine a whole election with him? Grim.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
He has literally been trained to act like that.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.
Could the real Sunak be any worse? I've seen better and more credible performers in the local village hall panto.0 -
Oh no you haven't.briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
He has literally been trained to act like that.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.
Could the real Sunak be any worse? I've seen better and more credible performers in the local village hall panto.2 -
Can you imagine a whole election with him?briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
He has literally been trained to act like that.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.
Could the real Sunak be any worse? I've seen better and more credible performers in the local village hall panto.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Can you imagine a whole election with him?briantrumpet said:First.Aspect said:
He has literally been trained to act like that.briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.
Could the real Sunak be any worse? I've seen better and more credible performers in the local village hall panto.
I cant even imagine a whole panto with him. I'd go to the pub at the interval and stay there.0 -
As a style of answering questions I feel it's pretty ubiquitous across all politicians. This seems a particularly galling example though.0
-
Jezyboy said:
As a style of answering questions I feel it's pretty ubiquitous across all politicians. This seems a particularly galling example though.
Yeah, it's the norm now, and I've posted enough clips of politicians from previous eras that were actually allowed to engage their own intelligence and style to answer questions. I could watch that sort of stuff all day, and can manage about two minutes of the current style. IIRC, the change started in the Thatcher era, but it's got progressively worse to the point where there's barely any point in listening to any politician under the 'care' of the image people.0 -
No thanks.First.Aspect said:
Mutual?pblakeney said:
My outlook is - They are working, I’m on a jolly. Suits me fine to pause, have a drink and take in the view. Mutual waves means the next cyclist may receive some courtesy.TheBigBean said:I've never had a problem with farmers, but then I understand the hassles they face, and I'm sympathetic to the point of view that someone who chooses to live in farming country because it's pretty should probably accept that will result in inconveniences due to farming.
Pop around here and see how you get on with that. Even when you stop and wait or get out of the way, you are a basterd townie for being there in the first place.
Besides, when someone around here is verbally abused by our local farmer, or he decides to damage something to make a point, the victim is normally actually at home, so it's slightly different isn't it?
This forum convinces me that I chose the right area to live in on a weekly basis.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We need a modern Jeremy Paxman or 2. Ref that 1997 'interview' with Michael Howard... 'did you threaten to overrule him?....'0
-
It's interesting that the image people have done the cost benefit analysis between the risk of potentially looking like an idiot, screwing up thinking on the spot, and the risk definitely looking an idiot because you're repeating yourself and not answering the question, and come to the conclusion that definitely looking like an idiot is better.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:As a style of answering questions I feel it's pretty ubiquitous across all politicians. This seems a particularly galling example though.
Yeah, it's the norm now, and I've posted enough clips of politicians from previous eras that were actually allowed to engage their own intelligence and style to answer questions. I could watch that sort of stuff all day, and can manage about two minutes of the current style. IIRC, the change started in the Thatcher era, but it's got progressively worse to the point where there's barely any point in listening to any politician under the 'care' of the image people.
I'm interested to see what Sunak does during the GE. Boris got away with avoiding scrutiny but he didn't need to climb the mountain that Sunak has in front of him. I'd think Sunak needs to put himself in front of more cameras and win over some people.
0 -
Jezyboy said:
It's interesting that the image people have done the cost benefit analysis between the risk of potentially looking like an idiot, screwing up thinking on the spot, and the risk definitely looking an idiot because you're repeating yourself and not answering the question, and come to the conclusion that definitely looking like an idiot is better.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:As a style of answering questions I feel it's pretty ubiquitous across all politicians. This seems a particularly galling example though.
Yeah, it's the norm now, and I've posted enough clips of politicians from previous eras that were actually allowed to engage their own intelligence and style to answer questions. I could watch that sort of stuff all day, and can manage about two minutes of the current style. IIRC, the change started in the Thatcher era, but it's got progressively worse to the point where there's barely any point in listening to any politician under the 'care' of the image people.
I'm interested to see what Sunak does during the GE. Boris got away with avoiding scrutiny but he didn't need to climb the mountain that Sunak has in front of him. I'd think Sunak needs to put himself in front of more cameras and win over some people.
Sunak also has the problem that he's sold himself as someone serious, not a bumbling clown, as Johnson did.0 -
Not sure what to suggest apart from hitting the pies pretty hard and wearing a grey wig.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but I'm clearly not giving off MAMIL vibes, or indeed vibes that if I kicked off they'd be in trouble.Stevo_666 said:
TBF, you're in Cambridge on a bike so people will be right most of the time if they do that.rick_chasey said:
I'd be more inclined to agree if people still didn't call me a "f*cking student" aged 35 when i'm cycling.shirley_basso said:I don't think a car driver is making any discernable judgement of a person's size when they spot a cyclist. How can you even tell when they are hunched over, anyway?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The media companies / BBC ought to get together and agree not to interview them if they are just going to be like a political equivalent of an automated phone line.Jezyboy said:
It's interesting that the image people have done the cost benefit analysis between the risk of potentially looking like an idiot, screwing up thinking on the spot, and the risk definitely looking an idiot because you're repeating yourself and not answering the question, and come to the conclusion that definitely looking like an idiot is better.briantrumpet said:Jezyboy said:As a style of answering questions I feel it's pretty ubiquitous across all politicians. This seems a particularly galling example though.
Yeah, it's the norm now, and I've posted enough clips of politicians from previous eras that were actually allowed to engage their own intelligence and style to answer questions. I could watch that sort of stuff all day, and can manage about two minutes of the current style. IIRC, the change started in the Thatcher era, but it's got progressively worse to the point where there's barely any point in listening to any politician under the 'care' of the image people.
I'm interested to see what Sunak does during the GE. Boris got away with avoiding scrutiny but he didn't need to climb the mountain that Sunak has in front of him. I'd think Sunak needs to put himself in front of more cameras and win over some people.0 -
Could you describe Starmer as simply, 'reserved'?briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
pinno said:
Could you describe Starmer as simply, 'reserved'?briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.
I could, but I'm not going to.
The pity is that I think he probably has got the wit not to have everything scripted for him, as have a few of the Labour front bench. But they are all on a tight leash, which is vaguely understandable, given how unremitting the press is in response to anything that smacks of independent thought.0 -
Quite understandable really given what quite a few Labour front benchers are likely to say if they are allowed to speak their mind. The 'Tory scum' episode was a case in point. Don't blame the press, blame the MPs who talk leftiebollox.briantrumpet said:pinno said:
Could you describe Starmer as simply, 'reserved'?briantrumpet said:kingstongraham said:Behold the polished communicator.
Even Trump's a better communicator than Sunak. Starmer's no performer, but I think he's naturally an anorak. Sunak? I've no idea what the real Sunak is like, as it appears he's been trained to act like this, and it's really weird.
I could, but I'm not going to.
The pity is that I think he probably has got the wit not to have everything scripted for him, as have a few of the Labour front bench. But they are all on a tight leash, which is vaguely understandable, given how unremitting the press is in response to anything that smacks of independent thought."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Lots of younger Tory MPs or wannabe MPs bemoaning the lack of attention to millennials who now should be voting Tory but really don’t (collectively).
So much of this boils down to affordable housing tbh0 -
It is hard to overstate after tax, student loans, and housing costs, how little there is left for most under 40s0
-
Wit the news that the TINO Govt wants to set the price of bread and milk does anybody disagree with me that this Govt is economically to the left of Ed Miliband?0
-
Worth noting that life was not a bed of roses in the early 90s when mortgage rates were 15% and mortgage affordability tests were much harder to pass. I attended an interview in person for my first mortgage!rick_chasey said:It is hard to overstate after tax, student loans, and housing costs, how little there is left for most under 40s
0 -
Also for those around and earning in the 80s, the top rate of income tax was 60% until 1989, with the top rate kicking in on income above £41,200 per year in 1988. The 40% rate applied over £17,900, 45% over £20,400 pa, 50% over £25,400 pa and 55% over £33,300. Even allowing for inflation, that's a lot of tax. Millenials never had it so good...wallace_and_gromit said:
Worth noting that life was not a bed of roses in the early 90s when mortgage rates were 15% and mortgage affordability tests were much harder to pass. I attended an interview in person for my first mortgage!rick_chasey said:It is hard to overstate after tax, student loans, and housing costs, how little there is left for most under 40s
Realistically student grants were never affordable and in any event I drank mine quite quickly."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
15% and a tax break on f*ck all is still f*ck all.wallace_and_gromit said:
Worth noting that life was not a bed of roses in the early 90s when mortgage rates were 15% and mortgage affordability tests were much harder to pass. I attended an interview in person for my first mortgage!rick_chasey said:It is hard to overstate after tax, student loans, and housing costs, how little there is left for most under 40s
What proportion of income do under 40s pay on housing? And how has that changed over time?
I'll give you an idea. My house was £75k in 1996. I bought it for £425k.
So my deposit was almost the same as the entire house was worth in 1996.
Sure, you have inflation etc but that doesn't account for a lot of it.
So say I saved £10k and then my mortgage was £75k. 15% on £60k is what, £9k?
Currently, 2 year fixed on 85% LTV is what, 5%?
What do you think 5% of £360k is? £18k. Twice as much.
And then childcare costs 2x as much as it did in the 90s, and then you're paying off your student loan too.
And that's before a) I had to save up not £10k but £60k to buy a house and b) i don't get the tax breaks people in the 90s did on a mortgage. That's why people get so incredulous when people say "stop buying avocados or coffees to save up for a house" - how many coffees do you need to not buy to get to £60k? 20,000 if you're buying expensive coffees? or almost 10 year's worth if you buy 2, £3 coffees a day.0
