Jenny1

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > May looks so lonely whenever she's abroad these > days - maybe she should just sit in front of the > water cannon with the protesters. She's never looked comfortable on the global stage. She's a funny old stick.

Quite. Never was a chalice more poisoned.

I was able to view it from Loz's post. Exceptionally funny.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ideal for a 17 year old before going to higher > education. > > Agree with this though. But to get the numbers of workers necessary students would have to be shipped in and live in temporary accomodation for the duration of the work. There simply wouldn't be enough labour locally to do the work.

Mechanisation has certainly revolutionised agriculture over the decades. But agricultural work has always been mainly seasonal, certainly since the enclosures. That's why it was so hard to support a family on a labourer's wages during my father and grandfather's lifetimes. And that's why you read about grinding rural poverty in so many memoirs of the twentieth century. 'Stone picking hungry' as they used to say in Norfolk - a reference to harsh winters when you could keep body and soul together by earning a few bob for picking flints out of the fields.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > (and a tip of the hat to Jenny1 for that phrase!) Thank you Loz. Right back at'cha (as I believe our American cousins are wont to say).

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The wealth of the wealthy top 1% is mobile & they > & their families are not affected by the same > economic conditions as are the rest us us. That makes sense. I'll have a look at Hahnel. Gross economic inequality is iniquitous and makes for a sadder society. But my instincts are always towards working to improve the current imperfect status quo rather than revolutionary change. The former approach usually leads to more profound and lasting improvements in my view.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They cannot control the current spate of inflation > which is lead by the already reduced value of the > pound - inflation will rise regardless of rises in > interest rates; they are opting to try to > maintain employment Thanks. I got it the wrong way round then.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect he's more concerned with the level of > debt, Thanks. Makes sense.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did Mark Carney use the words 'Project Economic > Suicide'? If so in what context? > Do you know, that's all my own!! But I'm not going to trademark the phrase, as I feel sharing is important. Mark Carney used much more diplomatic and technical language.

So Mark Carney was saying this morning that as 'Project Economic Suicide' gains momentum, finessing monetary policy won't help much. But we do have a bit of a choice between job losses and inflation. Am I right in thinking that he's plumped for inflation - given that he's keeping the interest rates low? If so, seems like a sound choice in the circs.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "The political centre has been abandoned, > and that is never a good sign." > I'm also reminded of what my uncle used to say about the 1930s, the era when he was a young man. His claim was that at that time: 'you either had to be a Communist or a Fascist'. It wasn't true of course, you could have been something else, and his view was, to an extent, simply a justification for his own right wing views. But he was reflecting the extreme political climate of the time. There was always a risk after the global crash in 2008 that this would happen. I suppose we have to be grateful that much of Europe is in fact resisting political extremism and that our current British versions of this split are comparatively mild.

A fair and clear assessment. I'm old enough to remember the 1970s, when our status as 'The sick man of Europe' forced us to go 'cap in hand to the IMF'. It was famously the time of the 'brain drain'. That's already started again. Without a dramatic change of course, it's very clear what our destination is now going to be. And my honest assessment is that there's no-one on the political stage with the vision, leverage and courage to change that. I hope I'm proved wrong. I agree that this is a key, and worrying, point. Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The political centre has been > abandoned, and that is never a good sign. In a > country like Great Britain, that for so long had a > reputation for pragmatism and rationality, it is > grounds for real concern.

Nigello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just about to post that: sparrows - the hardiest > of bird, surely - were taking sips from water in a > plant pot (which I will now change as it must have > been there some time). That's good. I've put out two flower pot drainage saucers of water on garden table and plant stand. I try to keep them high up to allow any drinking bird to escape in time if a cat shows up. Dehydration is a big risk for birds I believe.

Yes. William Keegan is right.

Sorry - not sure on the birdseed. But just a reminder to everyone to put water out for the birds - particularly important in the hot weather.

Hi ferdinandg1. Are you doing this for academic or journalistic use? If you tell people a bit more about the context they might be readier to take part. Probably you're doing this already, but why not simply pop into local shops and businesses to invite people to get involved? Good luck with the project.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone will have to do something about pensions > and care (or watch that deficit rocket) in the > years to come, and it won't be popular. Yes. Completely agree. Sorry, wasn't clear enough. Meant simply to contrast my agreement re TM's predicament with the swivel-eyed loons, against my earlier disagreement re feeling sorry for TM given her overall approach.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >she takes the reins as > the country is looking down the abyss on the back > of a decision she herself knew was stupid, obliged > to follow through in the aftermath by the swivel > eyed loons in her party that precipitated the > debacle of Brexit, and in the medium to long term > looking at a pension and care mountain that is > insurmountable unless some radical policy change > is made. Meant to say that I completely agree re the swivel-eyed loons.

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I feel very sorry for May, on a personal level. I'm afraid I agree with edcam on this one, so feel no sympathy for TM. She knows exactly how much damage Brexit will do to the country and yet grimly sticks to executing it. This is because to do otherwise would be to acknowledge her own and her party's complete ineptitude. If she or her party were really thinking about the public good they'd have set up a cross party commission immediately after the referendum result last year to work out how to move forwards. By mounting the referendum in the first place they directly caused the biggest challenge to this country's economy - and thus to our public services - for decades. Having done that they should have faced up to the magnitude of what was going on rather than focusing on desperately clinging to power. I'm sure TM is good at passing exams. But it takes more than that to lead a political party, let alone a country.

....and actually if you had wanted to design a policy to kipper the economy, ironically, hers would have been a fine one.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'TM's stance on Brexit which is specifically > designed to kipper the economy...' > > Could you explain to us why she wants to destroy > the economy? Is she a KGB agent? What fun it would be if she were! No - more prosaic than that. Simply not strong or principled enough to keep the economic interests of the country as her first priority whilst mounting a rearguard action against the right wing of her own party. John Major managed it - and he's not exactly Winston Churchill - so there's really no excuse that neither she or Cameron could. The 'specifically designed' is facetious on my part, of course. But it's supposed to highlight the fact that the policy was in no way 'designed' to achieve anything, except keep the UKIP wing of the Tories happy.

rendelharris Wrote: > Well deserving of an apology I'd say. > > ETA The election will have cost around ?150M, > including, extraordinarily, ?9M given to MPs > who've lost their seats as "winding up expenses." > Certainly winds me up! Absolutely. Appalling waste of money. And of course the election was called with the aim of promoting TM's stance on Brexit which is specifically designed to kipper the economy and consequently put the funding of public services at risk. I still don't get when the Tories became the party of messing up the finances. The only selling point they've had in my lifetime was the argument that they promoted business and industry, thus creating wealth that would benefit all. I can't say I'm convinced by the 'trickle down' argument - but it was all they had, and now they've ditched it.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'm still none the wiser where it will leave > Brexit negotiations though. From the perspective of people who want a proper debate about what on earth we might try to achieve, the fluidity of the situation has to be helpful.

Yes. Sure that's right. I'm thinking about the cash.