Search results

Just needs pointing out it depends on the type of growth. If you've got a tumour, anti-growth is a good thing. Fact is they want the wrong type of growth - one where a select few see large gains while the majority see their real terms pay decrease. She keeps going on about getting a bigger pie...

No surprise no changes. Got to have worries on their ability to maintain performances going into a lot of games in quick succession and just hope it doesn't lead to any injuries. I'll go with a 1-1 tonight.

I agree with that but at the same time I can't think of another system whereby picking a local representative would be fairer. But at the same time there's no way an entire elected government should be chosen on that basis as it could totally fail to represent the country as a whole. So as I've...

It's also based on those that came up through the England youth ranks, although he does also have favourites who'll be picked regardless. I reckon if Phillips if half-fit he'll end up putting him in the squad ahead of someone like Ward-Prowse. This will end up costing us.

But never seem to remember the shitshow it causes and are quickly calling for more deregulation. For some reason they can't see regulation as the thing that stops the bad stuff happening, only it getting in the way of growth.

I agree with him too - the people should decide. Not going to happen now she's fucked her new leader bounce within a week. Point I was making was BSB said they make shit picks but fact is the last one they picked won a landslide in an election, so the people did actually get to decide and...

But they'll point out Boris' landslide. So even though they make shit picks it seems large swathes of the country will agree with it.

I think we may end up only playing one of the strikers when O'Hare is fit again, partnering either Allen or Palmer. With less creativity in the midfield and Gyo tending to hold the ball up and run at defenders to create his own chances, Gidden's scoring opportunities have been more limited this...

I think it's quite common to choose something that can be checked and shown to not be true because it helps weed out those that won't be taken in by it and so those that spread it are people that can be fooled more easily, and their network is likely to be the same. Basically efficient marketing...

Except with this lot it's "better to let 90% of the population starve or freeze to death so the remaining ten percent can buy a new yacht."

To be fair there may be a second earner contributing (which still makes it very disingenuous), but it's still nothing like the reality for even people that do earn that.

Thing is she's so dense I honestly don't know whether she's lying or genuinely believes that they're capped at £2.5k because she doesn't understand the measure in place.

He says we're pandering to the 0.1%. He's going to be so shocked when he hears what we've been doing economically for God knows how long.

FFY

I've never understood why it's even used at all as the only thing it can possibly do is mislead and lead people into pending more on fuel than they normally would because they think they're covered above £2.5k. It can only be with the intention of being misleading. If it's the rate is capped...

You should stop being so unpatriotic and talking down our economic opportunities. Frankly you deserve to be sacked. ;)

Or are we just a bunch of individuals who all have the same thoughts on the subject? Thoughts which seem to be shared by numerous economists, the BoE and the IMF. I couldn't give a fuck what other people post. Sometimes I will agree with them, sometimes I won't. Some I'll probably agree with...

You can't believe it if you don't understand it.

That's the problem when you have people with this much money - they can buy influence and power to set the narrative. Hence why we've got this almost ingrained belief that taxation is bad but dividends are good.

Are you still talking about football?