Dyson moans about state of UK science and tech, forgets to suck up his own mess If one man should know how living with the consequences of his own actions might suck, it's James Dyson. The billionaire vacuum cleaner salesman has picked a UK national newspaper to vent his frustration at what he sees as the British government's "scandalous neglect of science and technology businesses," citing a Times piece …
Thank you for covering pretty much everything I'd otherwise have wanted to point out about James Dyson, the epitome of arch-Brexiteer hypocrisy.
Let's not forget his more recent actions are on top of the fact that- some time back- he'd already closed his factory in England and moved *that* to south-east Asia.
One of the major achievements of those who pushed for Brexit in the first place was to rope in useful idiots like you- i.e. kneejerk wannabe troll, not as clever as you think- with the idea that they were the anti-establishment, anti-elite ones. And by flattering you with the idea that, by going along with them, so were you.
You were every bit as much the sheep, but the pride of sad gits like you whose wannabe-rebel status is easily played will never let you admit it to yourself.
The greatest trick the moneyed elites and Brexiteer establishment ever pulled was convincing people like you that they weren't, and that they weren't.
Why don't you get a T-shirt with "I 'rebelled' by going along with a bunch of ultra-rich self-serving tossers, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt".
You'll have to pay for it yourself though, I doubt Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg would spend even a tenner of their money on a pleb supporter like you.
Baaaaaaaa.
Exactly..it's why I consider the English a bunch of boot licking sycophants that I literally have no time for. Unfortunately they can complain all they like about me leaving, but thanks to their dumb artery I can't..although I'm hitting LinkedIn for any job I can get in the EU where they want my skills.
The fact that people in this country are celebrating something that makes them poorer, has doubled food prices, driven 14 million families into literal poverty while making bankers, celebrated by aristo's who want to hide their money offshore & Russians who wanted to try to break up the EU as well as use the British Trust system to hide their money is just stunning!
The lady on Sky news watching the coronation who said "we can't afford our bills or buy food but we came down to see the King" typifies this country.....roll on the revolution
"I consider the English a bunch of boot licking sycophants that I literally have no time for."
What all of us? Have you met me, my wife my Dad my boss at work? So you hate 50+ million people for one thing without asking every single one of us what our stance is on that one thing that bothers you? That's a lot of hate to be carrying around, you have my sympathies!
I took the referendum seriously and spent countless hours reading about the EU, exactly what it does and how it works. I also read up on both sides of the argument and what the outcomes of leaving were likely to be, even learning about economic gravity among other things.
I came to the conclusion that leaving was never going to work the way the grifters were saying it would and, although I didn't love everything I learned about the EU, on the whole it was a plus to my life and the UK in general.
And after all that, I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a 'sheep' by people who spout provable nonsense and propaganda that they've fallen hook line and sinker for.
My irony meter is broken beyond repair at this point.
You are right. The EU was accepted as a self evident good by the remain campaign. 'To leave is lunacy' did not prove a convincing argument. How leavers laughed as we chased their bus and other specious lies. Now we live with the result. Sadly we have only our selves to blame.
That is the same as here in the U.S., the ultra-nationalists and authoritarians yell at the top of their lungs that they are right...and the answer, from those in control on the opposing side(s), is weak tea blabbering. I'm sick of the moderates to the progressives and on, down the line, not having a dog-damn backbone and standing up straight against the blowhards, they wilt like tall grass once even a slight wind blows against them.
We need a hell of a lot better.
The thing is, Remain was always going to be more of the same. Leave was going to be something different.
Leave will obviously try to persuade you that the different thing is better. The only thing Remain could do is persuade you that it would be worse. They couldn't credibly claim that Remain would lead to better things, because that self-evidently wouldn't be the case.
"They couldn't credibly claim that Remain would lead to better things, because that self-evidently wouldn't be the case."
The remain campaign was utterly feeble - the conservatives led by Cameron couldn't believe that the country would fall for the obvious lies and nonsense peddled by Farage et al, so didn't come up wiht anything to counter the glib bluster of the arch liar Johnson, and Corbyn was basically anti EU, bizarrely, given that EU workers had far better protection than ours now have.
What it did show is that people (as in the 2019 GE) are ore than happy to vote on attention grabbing headlines and 3 word slogans. Oh and of course the little hateful people that Cameron tried to quiet with his ludicrous referendum. U fortunately they are the kind of people that are still shouting, with increased desperation, about it and as usual can only hurl lies and insults at others as if they are still in short trousers.
"You are right. The EU was accepted as a self evident good by the remain campaign. 'To leave is lunacy' did not prove a convincing argument. How leavers laughed as we chased their bus and other specious lies. Now we live with the result. Sadly we have only our selves to blame."
But this just isn't true. Remainers were shouted down every time they tried to point out actual facts. And boy did we try.
@anonymous boring coward
"But this just isn't true. Remainers were shouted down every time they tried to point out actual facts. And boy did we try."
Wasnt much better being a Brexiter and pointing out the actual facts. Even now some will deny fact.
"Wasnt much better being a Brexiter and pointing out the actual facts. Even now some will deny fact."
I don't recognise that. Perhaps you pointed out made up stuff? What facts are we denying even now?
Where's the £350m, by the way? You do realise you only "won" by lies like that, and 70m Turks being due to arrive.
@anonymous boring coward
"I don't recognise that. Perhaps you pointed out made up stuff?"
Doesnt matter if you recognise it or not. If you didnt discuss with me then you wouldnt know.
"Where's the £350m, by the way?"
The money for the NHS? That 'could' go to the NHS? Its going to the NHS already and more. But if you want to discuss how bad the official campaigns were (leave and remain) feel free.
"You do realise you only "won" by lies like that, and 70m Turks being due to arrive."
If you believe that I understand why you dont recognise factual discussion
Brexit has FAILED. You can change the broken record now. Why not, instead of posting the same, sad, bullshit that's been spouted these last 8 YEARS, go out and enjoy the new found SOVEREIGNTY and CONTROL ? Think of your health.
"go out and enjoy the new found SOVEREIGNTY and CONTROL"
I think that is the issue.. there is nothing to enjoy, shit started running down the stairs the day after the referendum... and since we shut the proverbial door, the shit is now so deep, we're swimming it it.
What makes it worse, its impossible to escape - we've got 2 political parties that can't move on from it, with media outlets seemingly finding a way to tie everything back to Brexit, cause its an easy way to generate clickes... and a depressed population that should be en-mass prescribed xanax.
"The money for the NHS? That 'could' go to the NHS?"
Yeah.. Guess Leavers aren't very good with language. Guess defrauding them is ok then?
You are basically saying: "all leaver idiots fell for it". I'm pretty sure you believed it too, at the time.
You do realise that "could" can also mean "will happen in the future, if you do this"?
"You could have this car, if you pay this much" doesn't mean you pay, and then MAYBE you get the car.
It's implied that it will happen under certain circumstances. Not that it's an empty promise that would never happen.
We left, so -> 350m PER WEEK extra should now go to the NHS. Is "should" too vague too? How about "must"?
I'm sure a court of law would be able to explain this and put the fraudsters in the slammer if this was a regular financial fraud.
@anonymous boring coward
"Yeah.. Guess Leavers aren't very good with language. Guess defrauding them is ok then?"
Not fraud just because you aint very good with language and mistake could for must.
"I'm sure a court of law would be able to explain this and put the fraudsters in the slammer if this was a regular financial fraud."
Gonna throw you a bone because you seem to be struggling. It seems the idiot Boris actually did say it would go to the NHS. The good news is the NHS is getting that money and more so your crying is for nothing.
codejunkie>> Gonna throw you a bone because you seem to be struggling. It seems the idiot Boris actually did say it would go to the NHS. The good news is the NHS is getting that money and more so your crying is for nothing.
A very disingenuous post. Because any additional spending on the NHS, in line with normal increases one would expect due to inflation etc, has come from increased taxation. Not from some apocryphal financial benefit from leaving the EU. (Mostly because there has been no financial benefit from the UK leaving the EU.)
"Not fraud just because you aint very good with language and mistake could for must."
Stones, glass house...
Anyhow.. I didn't believe the £350m for a second, so this doesn't apply to me -no matter what kind of language they would have used. I'm merely observing that many did believe it. And it was a lie, no matter how you trie to cover it up with semantics.
@anonymous boring coward
"Anyhow.. I didn't believe the £350m for a second"
Great. Just as I didnt believe the remain lie that NHS funding would drop due to brexit.
"I'm merely observing that many did believe it. And it was a lie, no matter how you trie to cover it up with semantics."
I am guessing you missed the bone I threw to you. But both campaigns lied and lied hard. The remain campaign had the weight of government behind it and actually used it to threaten the population. Neither official campaign was good.
@anonymous boring coward
"NHS is on its knees, if you haven't noticed"
When isnt it? The happy times of the NHS was when an unsustainable boon of money was thrown at it then its back to reality and the NHS is on its knees.
"I think Remain pointed out that staff shortages would happen?"
Wow. You pretend not to read my comment about remain claiming NHS funding would fall (which it didnt) and moved to a different prediction. One which is a self inflicted problem of government. First penalising large pension pots which caused doctors to retire early, and government controlling the supply of training spaces (and the degrees requirements).
Remember the stupidity during covid where retired doctors wanted to come back and help inject people but had to go through various training beforehand including some sort of certification for dealing with trans. All to inject someone they would interact with for a minute.
"Not so much about financing."
Really? Awesome so tell those striking NHS workers to stop complaining about the money. And if it isnt about financing then surely your entire moan that is this conversation about the £350m is invalidated.
"Staff shortages are happening. OK?"
And so what should be done about it? Take more staff from the various countries particularly lower paid ones? Or reduce the government interference and put less obstacles in the way of joining the health profession?
Remember the stupidity during covid where retired doctors wanted to come back and help inject people but had to go through various training beforehand including some sort of certification for dealing with trans.
Citation required, otherwise filed under Phoney-Culture-War bullshit. Thanks Petal.
rather than go to fund massive royal wankfests in the UK
From which I conclude that you are one of those who believes that "somehow" the UK becoming a republic with a president at the top of the shitheap will be without cost to the taxpayer.
Poor deluded fool...
I think this has been discussed before, and I can tell you it is very similar in Denmark.
It should be possible, even in UK or Denmark, to find a better figurehead than someone who has been PM or is royal. Ireland and Germany have managed IMHO.
If the chosen head of state is an apolitical figurehead, then surely it doesn't matter how they're chosen? All they have to do is smile when cutting the ribbons. A royal who's been trained from birth to do what's best for the country is a better choice than many.
If, on the other hand, the head of state has real political power (US, France, etc.) you can be quite sure that those who put themselves forward will be the ones who most want power, as listed above. They are therefore the very last ones you want to have that power (Trump, Blair, Macron, etc.).
The British/German royals don't do what's best for the country, they do what's most profitable for The Firm. Which includes meddling in democratic legislative process to protect their wealth.
It's time the British, for once, copied the French and Russians and just disposed of those leeches. After expropriating their wealth as the proceeds of crime. Which it mostly was.
"Here's one of many."
The queens lawyer lobbied parliament in the 70s. How is this interfering in the democratic process any more than countless other lobbying groups and individuals? I get that you dont like the royals but this smacks of desperation. At least you can string a sentence together unlike some around here, and frankly I couldnt care less about them, but I can't see that we would be any better off with an "elected" president (given the publics tendency to vote for any old idiot with floppy hair) or less open to abuse of power and position.
> How is this interfering in the democratic process any more than countless other lobbying groups and individuals?
You really cannot see the difference when the lobbying is being done by the hereditary head of state in their private interest? I suppose if you think it's OK for the head of state to secretly get themselves privileges and exemptions not available to the rest of the population, you're in the right country.
You're allowed to write to your MP about a planning application and the head of a property developer that just donated a million quid to the party is allowed to chat to an MP (and home secretary) while they're having a free holiday on their yacht = that's democracy
It's time the British, for once, copied the French and Russians and just disposed of those leeches.
The French revolution ended up with nutters who wanted the best for other people in charge. That's all they wanted, and democracy.
Except as it turned out, if people voted against them then that wasn't ok, and if they rebelled against the revolutionaries then they "had" to kill them too. For their own good, of course. A few hundred thousand here on a revolutionary war, a few hundred thousand there on the Vendee revolt, a few million people dead in the Napoleonic wars and that's before you get into the mid 19th century coups shows how great an idea it is. For a political ideologue who doesn't care one iota about the body count. And how much more "free" is France than Britain for those several million deaths?
Russia obviously holds the record there of 7-12 million killed "for their own good" in their red revolution, and that's before we get to purges, deliberate starvation of a few million here and there and the like, and that's before you get into Stalin's war losses having purged the military of any potentially disloyal subjects and put politically loyal but incompetent idiots in charge. (Which you can see a reprise of in Ukraine at the moment...)
If you think that hereditary monarchy is a stupid way of ending up with a leader then your right. However, if you take a look at history as to why that came about then you'll find the answer in Gibbon's Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire, at a period where anybody with deep enough pockets who could afford to bribe the praetorian guard could proclaim themselves Emperor. It was complete chaos, insanity, and near anarchy which made "game of thrones" look outright tame. The roman mess also looks strikingly like Russia at the moment with secret police locking up or killing anybody disagreeing with the wisdom of the leader, precisely because said leader can be replaced by assassination at the drop of a hat and so can't tolerate dissent.
Having a hereditary monarch with very limited powers, but whom the armed forces report to instead of the politicians outright prevents politicians getting ideas too; it would be outright impossible for a political leader in the UK to stage any form of a coup as was allegedly attempted in America by Trump, and the main criticism comes from people who want that power, which is a good historical indication that they should be kept so far away from said power that they suffocate in the vacuum of space.
After expropriating their wealth as the proceeds of crime. Which it mostly was.
The 1701 Act of Settlement forces all of the income from the Royal Family (in the Crown Estate) to go into the bottomless maw of HM Treasury, and they get 15% of their own money back for maintaining various buildings and their staff, with the remaining 85% being retained by Westminster for public spending.
Your advocating something that was done 321 years ago. ;)
Oh, we can protest as much as we want. Then the politicians do whatever anyway, and ignore the protests.
So we are perfectly equal there; despite the scale of protests the yellow vest protests didn't appear to achieve much, for instance.
Your allowed to protest as much as you want.
Your now simply subject to arrest if you come equipped to chain yourself across a road and stop other people going about their lawful business or similar, which a substantive majority of the population feel ought to have been the case before, rather than being subject to arrest for causing a problem after doing it.
" if you come equipped to chain yourself across a road and stop other people going about their lawful business or similar"
Nope, the anti royalists were not equipped to do anything othe rthan chant and wave banners. Even the police admit that. And stopping people going about their "lawful business" (however briefly)is rather the point of a protest. If everyone stood around going "careful now" and "down with this sort of thing" (but not too loudly in case they caused someone to feel upset) what would ever be achieved?
"It's time the British, for once, copied the French and Russians and just disposed of those leeches"
Yes, that worked out well didn't it? The French had the Terror for a few years (self appointed leaders of the revolution killing off anyone who disagreed with them in any way) then rolled over and declared Napoleon emperor. Russia gave us the first communist country where all men were equal, especially those at the top echelons, who were kept in power by the secret police.
You're really not selling it to me on this.
I'd just like to chip in to point out that countries where the President is elected separately to the rest of government often spend a long time doing nothing useful because the two sides are in opposition and actively try to frustrate each other. Is this a good way forward?
@heyrick
That was a bit odd, as you probably think that the other side, the government, is run by just one party like in Britain, but that is hardly ever the case, if actually ever as governments are run by coalitions. A president is supposed to leave party policy behind and some succeed better and some perhaps not that well.
And there are different presidential systems too.
Many old kingdoms in Europe like for instance Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium have managed to keep their monarchs and still produce democratic coalition governments of many parties.
The king is not the main problem with British democracy.
>All they have to do is smile when cutting the ribbons. A royal who's been trained from birth to do what's best for the country is a better choice than many.
That seems optimal, assuming they are paid the going rate for somebody whose only skill is waving and smiley blankely.
"A royal who's been trained from birth to do what's best for the country is a better choice than many."
Perhaps, but he/she doesn't have to own so much, does he/she? Nor be showered with money every year. It's embarrassing the way things are.
I'm intrigued by that proposition.
I currently live in a country with an elected president who, whilst having a political background, is generally well-respected and seems perfectly capable of separating his role from his personal beliefs.
The problem is that "President" like "Brexit" is a word that can mean just about anything. Whereas Johnson and Blair might conceivably be interested in a political presidency, I can't see either of them being interested in a "national treasure" role as it might bring them under too much scrutiny. And if one Windsor were elected above a different WIndsor, it would at least be the anyone-but-Will of the people.
I can't quite understand why the British, almost uniquely, should be presumed so incapable of choosing a head of state and, more bizarrely still, that the most logical remedy for that should be a reserve pool of inbreds.
It isn't actually a national treasure role. Head of state represents the nation as a whole. While it's desirable that the various branches of the state, military, judicial, civil or whatever should be responsible to the nation humans really work best if their relationship is with another human rather than an abstract entity. That's what having a head of state provides. OTOH separating head of state from head of government avoids gathering all the power into one pair of hands which is generally a Good Thing.
You can debate at length how best to achieve that. At least a hereditary monarchy avoids making it a political office which is hard to avoid with an elected head. It also means that you don't have someone whose event horizon is no more distant than the next election. It's not a fate I'd wish on anyone, however - I'm slightly older than the king and a long time retired whereas he's only just got started. It also means that you have to take pot luck to some extent although we do seem to have solved that problem - it took a lot less time to get rid of Edward VIII than it did to get rid of BoJo.
"It isn't actually a national treasure role."
It isn't a role at all at present. Were we to have a president, we could define the role in any way we chose and redefine it if necessary, without needing to remove anyone's head.
At least a hereditary monarchy avoids making it a political office which is hard to avoid with an elected head.
Utter nonsense! As the presidents of Germany, Ireland, Finland, Italy, etc show.
An elected president does't have to be a political office. A country's constitution defines the role and power of its president/head of state. Sometimes that means an executive political role, sometimes it doesn't.
Voters get to choose their (term-imited) president. We don't get to pick who is king or queen. And we can't ever vote them out of office. Suppose an unfortunte outbreak of food poisoning at Buck House meant Prince Andrew (who is not a paedophile sex offender) became King.
Suppose an unfortunte outbreak of food poisoning at Buck House meant Prince Andrew (who is not a paedophile sex offender) became King.
FYI: Russia is the country with a problem with poisoning of food of political opponents. The same country where they also fall out of the first floor window. (of a subterranean bunker)
I can't quite understand why the British, almost uniquely, should be presumed so incapable of choosing a head of state and, more bizarrely still, that the most logical remedy for that should be a reserve pool of inbreds.
Our constitutional monarchy has worked for us reasonably well and the system of government has been evolving to meet the nations needs as they arise for the last thousand or so years. Changing it to a fixed system and declaring that the end of any development is just stupid.
Just because other people have done a copy and paste of the rest of our constitutional arrangements with "vote for your own king" and it's been a big improvement on their previous constitutional arrangements is not exactly a good reason for us to do the same; the existing system ain't broke and it doesn't particularly need fixing.
Personally I favour a deduction from the number of politicians, rather than additions to that number and if we are honest, so does a majority of the voting populace in the UK.
@Peter2
Who do you claim has "done a copy and paste of the rest of our constitutional arrangements", (voluntarily) and how has that turned out.
The simple fact is that a two party system with a only one party government is outdated undemocratic and one of the main reasons to your problems.
Having the same one party in power for 13 years alone* is just insane and probably not once representing the majority of the population, so what you get is indeed what you deserve.
An other stark problem among too many is an inbuilt assumption that you represent the golden standard, or how Nick Clegg so eloquently put it many many years ago about some of his countrymen - "... a misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war..".
If you are unable to spot or admit a problem you will not be able to mend it either.
*except for the chaos.
An other stark problem among too many is an inbuilt assumption that you represent the golden standard
Which I take it that you are trying to demonstrate by a suggestion that another country adopts your personally preferred presidential system of government because it's clearly the best solution for that country?
I think my irony meter exploded because it went so far off the scale.
Also; you forgot to select the "Anonymous Coward" option btw. ;)
"The trouble with the other party is that they have destroyed the economy every time they were in power; the problem with the Tories is that they have adopted the other parties socialist policies."
This old nonsense again? When has labour "destroyed the economy" ? You might want to look up the national debt under the conservatives (pre covid btw) that despite austerity was more than every labour government ever, combined. Whats next in your arsenal of "ooh but labour"? The famous "note"? What socialist policies did the tories adopt? What socialist policies (do you know what the word even means?) did labour under Blair force on us?
Shall we wait?
"Personally I favour a deduction from the number of politicians, rather than additions to that number and if we are honest, so does a majority of the voting populace in the UK."
The voting public in the UK gave us brexit and the tory government. Why would you like fewer MPs ? I thought the job of MP was to represent (among other things) his or her constituency members in parliament. If we have fewer MPs then your voice will be even less heard than it is now.
> ...your voice will be even less heard than it is now.
Even if the MP for my district were the one I voted for, there is still little reason to suppose they would better represent my views in parliament. or that parliament in turn would be in any way swayed by that representation.
I imagine a cynic might suggest that democracy is, in some sense, a dictatorship of mediocrity.
> ...the British, almost uniquely, should be presumed so incapable of choosing a head of state...
It's not that we're incapable, rather that we've seen the consequences in all too many other countries, as mentioned in an earlier post. It's long been predicted that democracy inevitably devolves into demagoguery, and we've seen the outcome of that too.
With that voting pattern I can understand just why some of the current crop of politicians get in
David Attenborough: captured by the green loonies
Miriam Morgolis: says the first thing that comes into her mouth - the head doesn't even get a look in
Stormzy: I'm sure he could come up with the right rap for any occasion - but I don't like rap
Hannah Fry: not heard of her just did a quick google and I quote "She studies the patterns of human behaviour, such as interpersonal relationships and dating, and how mathematics can apply to them."
I do hope you post was meant as sarcasm
Would you say exactly this same thing if you were not hiding behind "Anonymous Coward" or even an alias?
If you are not prepared to say something and be accountable, don't say it.
Too many people post all sorts of abuse when they can hide their identity.
Just why is this "Comments" section full of so much abuse?
"Just why is this "Comments" section full of so much abuse?"
For many, Brexit is like a red flag to a bull (to put this into context, my life is in Europe now but I'm not European, fuck the Tories right between the eyeballs), and an article where one of the main cheerleaders for the clusterfuck is whinging? Well, that's just icing on the cake.
Really, if you don't like heated discussion it's probably best not to read anything to do with Brexit. This rift isn't going to heal in any sensible timeframe.
I think people generally respected QE2.
The rest of the family... well they're like weird celebrities by accident of birth or marriage and there are some who really don't think that horse-faced mewling quim should be occupying the seat next to the King.
So, love for the Queen? Loads. Love for the rest of 'em? Not so much.
"this particular comments section is far worse than usual."
We seem to have acquired a couple of new faeces, sorry, faces that imagine that their puerile name calling and playground language is somehow a way of making them seem clever. Maybe time for the mods to do some pruning.
"do you prefer a twat with a fancy hat, who talks to fucking plants and believes in fucking woo woo?"
Sorry, are you under the impression that swearing makes you seem clever or tough? If you can't actually string a collection of words into a coherent sentence without swearing maybe you should try engaging your brain. Do you talk to people in general like that? It's pathetic.
What about Mick Lynch, one of the few intelligent voices coming out of Britain lately.
But king or president is not what would helped the British problem.
To get to the problem you have to fix the parliamentary system and your educational system
and perhaps some more.
What about Mick Lynch, one of the few intelligent voices coming out of Britain lately.
WTF?
Lynch is another Scargill, he hates the Tories with such a passion that he's willing to use his own members as cannon fodder in a private army to bring down an elected government. He refuses to accept any deal, and won't even let his members vote on it, in the desperate and misguided hope that public pressure will cause parliament to cave in. He'll destroy the railways if he has to. The sad thing is that most people nowadays can manage fine without railways if they have to, so the nation that invented them will lose them, thanks to the greed and hatred of one man.
Even Labour can see through him, FFS.
Bye the way, you know he voted Leave in the Brexit referendum, I presume?
The two things are not mutually exclusive.
What we really need is wholesale constitutional reform including a democratic House of Lords, a House of Commons that actually reflects public opinion, and an elected head of state.
A democratic House of Lords would only result in another bunch of thick politicians, oh that's what we already have; the purpose of the Lords is to scrutinise and revise legislation; what is required is a system where neutral relevant experts are brought in to perform the scrutinise and revise function.
Neutral relevant experts like Andrew Lloyd-Webber or the 7th Earl of Minto, you mean?
Or perhaps you'd like to explain what it is exactly that makes giving a large donation to a political party a qualification to be considered an expert in anything other than graft?
"a House of Commons that actually reflects public opinion,"
Seriously? The public voted in the tories with an 80 seat majority in 2019, are you telling us that they didnt want this bunch of lying psychopathic racist idiots in charge? Public opinion is a very dangerous tool to use, considering most people dont care enough about politics and truth beyond what they are fed in their daily paper, and as such as easily (lets be kind) foreign media moguls. So who would really choose our head of state and parliament?
I can't think of anyone in the UK I'd vote for as president.
Jeremy Bentham. He's been quietly occupying a place at UCL for 173 years, and in all that time he's never got us involved in a war, screwed up the economy or sexually harassed a student or staff member. He even goes out for the odd drink with students apparently. Sound fellow, you know he'd be better than 99% of other candidates.
No objections to a hereditary figurehead. But what we have now is a figurehead with no real power to act as a check or balance on the government, who in return for rubber stamping the government of the day's legislation gets inordinate amounts of privilege, tax breaks etc. There are 1000 ways a mature democracy could arrange its affairs so that a suitably sober individual with a track record of public service could be appointed to meet and greet visiting heads of state at Heathrow and treat them to a slap up nosh round their gaff, which is about the only useful function of the current system. Of course there are also 999 ways you could arrange it to be worse, but fortunately with the calibre of our current leaders and the freedom we have from the dead hand of the EU that could never happen!
If we had a presidential election now, the top 3 most likely candidates would probably be BoJo, Tony Blair, and Harry Windsor.
And perhaps me if I can get my name deed poll changed to President McPresidentFace quickly enough.
Everybody here seems to be forgetting that Chaz is also the head of state of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
Any election for a head of state would have to include them all with equal representation - Good luck in making that one work.
Nope.
Their countries, their head of state, their decision.
They would / will each get to decide for themselves who they want as their Head of State (as some seem already to be doing).
If the UK became a republic, I suspect each of them would follow suite, but each electing their own individual president.
15 politicians hired (and requiring presidential trappings and cost to the public purse) where previously it was just the one monarchy. of course, but still - their countries, their choice..
I suspect a lot of those countries are content to have an apolitical head of state that does not cost much to maintain.
I doubt they will appreciate being forced to set up elections, build a presidential palace and all the associated trappings a head of state would need just to have somebody else on their coins and to appease some republicans in the UK.
"for when the shit happens"
The British government doesn't exactly have a great track record in giving a shit about overseas citizens.
Of course, the obvious answer is to not do stuff that would get one in trouble with the law to such an extent as to need consular assistance (or live in a country where that sort of thing happens).
>>We get fuck all from royals
Aside from 85% of their gross income.
>>Stop pretending they own the fucking UK,
Sadly, legally, they do. or is your argument "I don't want them to own anything, therefore they don't"?
>>, like fucking pirates all they think they own was fucking stolen.
Oh, it seems that your argument is "I don't want them to own anything, therefore they don't"
One could argue that " like fucking pirates all they think they own was fucking stolen" also applies to Trump, Putin, Xi, Kim Il Jong III and almost any other head of state you care to mention. What is the actual difference between a [mi,bi,tri]llionaire "buisiness man" head of state (because invariably, when it comes to presidents, the one with the deepest pockets gets in) and a "Royal"? I reckon its only that the Royals got a head start.
When I were a lad the only (vocal) replublicans were the left wing of the Labour party (who were at that time pretty left of centre; unlike today when they are centre right). Now it seems both ends of the spectrum are anti-royal; what a turn up for the books!
"Aside from 85% of their gross income."
It's only "their" gross income because the Crown estates are considered "their" land, rather than public property.
I know there are a lot more subtleties involved than that the royal family 'stole' the land centuries ago and kept it since.
And I know that the royal family DOES bring intangible benefits like tourist income and soft power / cultural influence
And I know it would be extremely problematic to find a satisfactory legal solution to effectively expropriating crown lands from the Windsors / Saxe-Coburg-Gothas* to the state.
And it absolutely would be a pity to not keep up on the maintenance of the historic palaces and mansions....
Nevertheless it is difficult to argue the position that the royals bring income to the UK government when that income is coming from land that really should be considered public land and not the personal property of the head of state.
"Sadly, legally, they do"
IANAL but I very much doubt that the royals 'own the UK' in any legal sense, let alone any practical sense.
Legal and economic questions aside, what I really find curious is the excessive fawning over the royal family by a certain portion of the population who DO really seem to behave as if they think that the royals are somehow better than anyone else. It's a pretty large chunk of the population too, or you wouldn't find papers like the Daily Mail drip-feeding them royals stories. Honestly, if a head of state has no or only symbolic political power, the only thing newsworthy about them is their official acts, pronouncements and visits. It's sad that people seem to care so much about the king/queen's wives, girlfriends, kids, grandkids, cousins, poodles and all the rest uf the unimportant fluff and hangers-on.
*Take your pick
You know that 'President' is a title, and not all presidential systems are the same? You can have elected executive power presidents, e.g. USA, Russia, China etc, but you can also have non-executive presidents, e.g Ireland, Germany etc where the president essentially acts as a figurehead and constitutional backstop.
"Do you own your house? Odds are the land it's built on was "stolen" from someone in the distant past"
I would think it far more likely that it was built either on community common land that was parcelled out to every member of the community, or built on unused, unclaimed land. You could, maybe, argue, that it was 'stolen' from public assets, but back at a time when the concept of public assets was still very vague, and also when the amount of land to go around per person/family was far far greater than it is today.
From this:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/467754/presidency-french-republic-expenses/#:~:text=In%202009%2C%20112.64%20million%20euros%20were%20spent%2C%20while,amounted%20to%20an%20estimated%20104.59%20million%20euros.%20
The cost of the French Presidency is a tad over 100 million Euro, so about £87 million p.a. at current exchange rates.
I suspect the cost of maintaining the monarchy is actually quite comparable to the cost of the president's office in any comparable (in terms of population/economy) republic
[Citation needed.]
Be sure to take account of the personal wealth/income of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, tax concessions*, hidden subsidies and all the state-funded shit they don't pay for, like the Royal Choo-Choo, the King's Flight, etc.
* Anyone care to guess how much inheritance tax will be collected from the estate of the Queen? That's on her vast personal wealth, not the palaces and bling that are supposedly held by the Crown rather than a specific monarch.
"UK becoming a republic"
From the antipodes I can not see the UK ever becoming a Republic.
An English Republic, a Scots Republic and either an enlarged Eire or a Kingdom of Ulster.
Not sure about the Welsh - probably any system the didn't involve the English would do - appointing one of their rugby front rowers as the prince of a Welsh palatinate might suit. :)
From the clusterfuck of the brexit referendum through the pandemic enhanced bufoonery of Boris Johnson and his circus with the political amateur hour of Truss and Sunak being topped off with a Royal wankfest I am not surprised that a sizeable number of skilled britons are heading to antipodean climes or to slightly less insane european haunts.
Actually I thought that valkyrie holding that bloody great sword might have done her nation a great deal of good on that day with a bit of judicious slicing and dicing.
"the UK becoming a republic with a president at the top of the shitheap will be without cost to the taxpayer"
Please explain? What would be the cost? And how would it be worse than maintaining the Royal Waste of Spaces?
Your suggestion doesn't make any sense.
Irony is someone like you who went along wholesale with the propagandistic spew of the vested interests of Brexiteers still clinging ever more tightly to the flattering lie that let them play you in the first place- the idea that it was your Remain-supporting opponents who were the "sheep" and not you.
Yes, but that'll still be preferable after the Tories have cancelled all UK passports and passed a law allowing the harvesting of its citizens' brains by the Brain Eating Aliens from Sirius IV (*) and people start wondering if it might be a good idea to consider moving elsewhere.
I mean, that's assuming we're still playing "purely hypothetical shite I just made up", right?
(*) Typically arranged such that the profits accrued go everywhere *except* the UK treasury coffers, as usual.
And by “purely hypothetical shite”, you mean: “but as far as I know, the EU Commission doesn’t have any direct tax-raising powers. And since it would be un-constitutional for them do so, I assume that nobody would let them pass any legislation giving themselves such. And if that happened, surely it would be in the papers or summat?”
Sigh.The EU already *has* direct tax-raising powers for the past few years. And in each funding round, they vote themselves more. It’s just that they’ve redefined the word “tax” as “Own Resources”
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_7025
As to whether individual citizens are *directly* taxed by the EU, yes indeed they are, as of July 2021. You have, on occasion, ordered stuff off the internet which came from another country, right? Well, since 2021 all such transactions are going through the EU One Stop Shop mechanism for VAT. The EU takes its rake (0.3%) *directly* from that without going through national government coffers. For the sake of efficiency, you understand. If you are going to insist that somehow this isn’t a direct tax on the individual because technically it’s collected by the seller, then I really can’t help you. Go on waving your flag. But those are the facts.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/revenue/own-resources/value-added-tax_en
https://vat-one-stop-shop.ec.europa.eu/index_en
> And by “purely hypothetical shite”, you mean: [ proceeds to shove some words in my mouth "or summat" (*) ]
No, by "purely hypothetical shite" I mean no-one had announced anything like that, and there was no sign of it happening, regardless of whether or not that was theoretically possible. (Spoiler; "hypothetical" is not a synonym for "something that could never happen").
Just like how- I suspect- it's theoretically possible that the UK government could sell us all to the aliens, assuming if they do things in the correct order and repeal a few inconvenient laws that grant people various rights that would most likely cover (amongst other things) not having their brains eaten by hostile beings from other planets under the guise of intergalactic capitalism.
Pick holes in that if you like, it *is* purely hypothetical shite after all. Just like WorkShyEU's comment was too.
> If you are going to insist [..] then I really can’t help you
You're attacking me for things I haven't even said yet based upon things I never even said in the first place? That's... something.
(*) Ha ha, that's how strawman thickies like me speak, amirite?!
Except, as I pointed out, “no-one had announced anything like that, and there was no sign of it happening” is simply wrong. It was *implemented* two years ago, links as provided.
The fact you didn’t notice, because you don’t understand how the system works, is irrelevant. Slightly sad, given how fervently you believe in your cause, that you refuse to even read what the EU itself says on the matter.
You may be able to argue that point pedantically.
But you and I- and everyone else here- know damn well that such a nitpicking corner case wasn't remotely what "WorkShyEU" had in mind- and was trying to scaremonger about- with their alleged "federal tax on EU passport holders".
Your point being that because the Americans are doing something- and have already been doing it for a long time- that somehow proves anything about the EU?
Or do you have any evidence for this beyond your own opinion (which we can safely guess is about as partisan as one can be regarding the EU)?
except it didn't. If you have read the documents you were citing, you would of seen that the respective proposal are not direct tax on thee EU citizens. I live in an EU country and there is no federal tax or whatever you call it that it is paid or applied to either the citizens of business transactions between member countries... Try again
I wonder how many of those bemoaning the people who bemoan the loss of FoM actually understand the true implications to the UK. Hint, it isn't just about whether or not YOU as an individual had any intention of making use of it...
For 99% of those who travel to Europe, other than a queue to get a stamp in a passport, there has been no impact.
Yes "Freedom of Movement" as a concept was lost but the impact is not what those who honk on endlessly about it claim.
I don't disagree the Brexit was a total mess but the entire shambles is a result of politics and inept politicians. Cameron assumed a Remain win was assured, that is the the starting point of the entire debacle.
For those of us who have to deal with the crap that Brexit stirred up, the disconnect between what WE know the impact to be, and what the general public THINKS it is, reminds me somewhat of how we dealt with the Millenium Bug. Remember that, all the stories of doom and gloom leading up to New Years Eve, and then barely a squeak afterwards as the masses thought it was all just a load of overblown twaddle, not realising just how much work had been put in behind the scenes to ensure that it did end up looking like a load of overblown twaddle and not the complete FUBAR it absolutely would have been otherwise.
Brexit is rather similar - there's been a shit-ton of work done already, and more still being done, to minimise the visible impacts on everyday life, but be under no illusion that nothing needed to be done to get us to this state just because it seems to the casual onlooker as if nothing has needed to be done. As a trivially simple example of this, next time you buy something that would previously have carried a CE mark, note how now you'll see a UKCA mark there, probably right alongside the CE mark as a constant reminder of how much duplication of effort Brexit requires from anyone wanting to do business both in the UK and the EU... The redesign of the packaging/instruction leaflet/whatever the mark is printed on is just the visible tip of what might have needed to occur behind the scenes to make sure that the product in question WAS actually eligible to carry that mark and remain on sale in the UK.
So typically EU. Instead of using an internationally understood image (like the kitemark used by the BSI) as the logo, they chose the initials of the French words for 'European Conformity', in a specified typeface. That let the Chinese pick a similar typeface, just different enough to avoid being sued, and use it for 'Chinese Equipment'. The EU can't do anything about it.
Meanwhile, the actual, real-world legal system doesn't work how tech geeks like to assume it does, and that's no more legally valid than, say, copying a Beatles song, changing a couple of words and saying "ha ha, it's different, so you can't sue me."
The fact that some people got away with it doesn't mean it'd be legal if it actually made it to court.
Yes "Freedom of Movement" as a concept was lost but the impact is not what those who honk on endlessly about it claim. Except it has. The loss freedom of movement, whether people or goods, or just a lorry driver needing new paperwork costs us all in inflationary cost of living rises. and neatly exchanged short term immigration by young hard grafters coming to the UKf or a few years and then going home with immigrants who need settled status to stay and so are a lot less likely to come home. But blue passports (printed in France....) yay!!!!!
Yes, but remember that for people like that, the right-wing Tory bleating about "free speech" and playing the victim when it comes to alleged "cancel culture" only applies to them.
If you disagree with them on something like Brexit or the monarchy- as was the case with the Conservatives' deputy chairman Lee Anderson- there's no "agree to disagree" or acknowledgement that- for the majority of those they disagree with- it's just as much *their* country which they're just as entitled to have an opinion on without being expected to leave.
No, it's "If you don't like it, move".
Hypocrisy at its purest.
Two points:
1. Without Freedom of Movement it is far harder.
(So your comment seems like trolling).
2. Seems pretty great here, and I'm working in one of the poorer EU countries.
(I moved here prior to the deadline, but but got the job more recently.)
If UK only passport holder is not eligible for an Irish passport and doesn't have a spouse* who is an EU citizen, the only EU country they can move freely to is the Republic of Ireland. Otherwise a visa is required, (some countries will be relatively easy, but a job offer is typically required.)
The actual act of moving will be somewhat more expensive. (I paid about 1500 GBP in 2020 for a sprinter van load, can't imagine it being that cheap, even to France, now.
*FOM covers a spouse of an EU citizen, except of course in their home country, where the citizen are not using it and regular rules apply.
"Move then.. not so great in the EU either..."
Yup, there it is , the standard brexiter BS response. I'd love to be able to move and live in the EU, unfortunately you clowns made that much harder to do. How's all that winning going?
How about Singapore, Thailand, the rest of SE Asia and so on? There is more to the world than the EU, a fact Leavers used to justify their inane claims, all the countries begging to sign lucrative deals, none of which actually existed. Then of course there's the little problem of all the skilled and qualified people needed who have gone to the EU or elsewhere. Brexit was an obvious con based on obvious lies told by known lying con artists and only believed by the terminally gullible.
I live in France. I watch the news and read thé wokerati paper and... honestly can't believe what's going on in the country I used to live in.
Maybe if you step outside and take a good hard look at the UK from afar, you'll understand that the tenuous logic of saying "somewhere else isn't better" is an admission of defeat.
I'll bite. Where in France were you living & working?
Exactly how were you impacted by the cut & thrust of French politics?
Which parts of the French bureaucracy trampled you underfoot?
I'd agree it's not for everyone. But it's "expats" who seem to have the biggest problems living abroad. As opposed to us mere immigrants.
I'll bite. Where in France were you living & working?
The S.East, the area that likes to consider itself the "silicon valley" of France. Lovely area, I liked it there.
Exactly how were you impacted by the cut & thrust of French politics?
Nationally? Much as the French are, I think. Parties that re-organize after every election (makes the Tories look like a model of calm reflection), an electoral system that gives the extreme right & extreme left large blocs of seats in parliament, where they can achieve nothing but to disagree with everyone else & block other votes. A President without a majority, who plays the extremes off against each other so that he can pass laws by executive order.
Locally, the system of PR used means that council elections are done by voting for a list, and where I lived there was only ever one list, with the same family names on it that they'd had for the past 5 generations. The only real choice you had was "vote" or "don't vote".
Which parts of the French bureaucracy trampled you underfoot?
Oh, I'm not one to be trampled. The biggest problem is that it's so slow & disorganized, especially now that government is centralizing everything. It used to be possible to get an ID card renewed in my local Mairie (town hall), but then they changed it to require that it be done in the Prefecture in the administrative city for the region. Get there early with a good book, take a number, and hope they get to you before they close. Even when they do, you'll need the right paperwork (including the traditional birth certificate 'no more than 3 months old', as if the circumstances of my birth had changed since then). Having all the right papers is essential, but difficult, just relying on the list from a government website isn't enough, there will always be one missing. On one occasion the local Prefecture made the mistake of printing that list on their own headed paper, and I had everything it said I needed. The clerk wasn't having any of it, insisting on something else (a year's worth of payslips, I think). When I politely stood my ground she eventually called a supervisor, who grudgingly agreed that I had all that was required.
It was such a shock to come back to the UK and discover that most things can be done by filling in a form on a website, or making a phone call. People respond to emails, and phone back when they say they will. I'm still sorting out some French financial details, and spending a fortune on international registered letters. That's the only way to get a response, emails are ignored and phone calls usually end up with a 'press 1..." system that eventually takes you to a recording that says "you can get the information you need on our website".
Some friends decided to apply for French citizenship, and took in all the paperwork. It was checked, they were told they would get a date for an interview. A while later they got a date, 16 months in the future. Near to that date they called to check if everything was still on track, to be told that the paperwork had expired since it was only valid for 12 months, and they would have to start again. Protestations that it was the Prefecture who set the date fell on deaf ears "Sorry madam, I don't make the rules, nothing I can do". Little wonder that when their (France-born) children graduated they chose to move to the UK.
I'd agree it's not for everyone. But it's "expats" who seem to have the biggest problems living abroad. As opposed to us mere immigrants.
It hits everyone, of course, not just foreigners. I did feel sorry for the N. African immigrants trying to sort out paperwork, who clearly suffered from prejudice, especially if they didn't speak good French. I agree that "expats" who hang out in cliques, refuse to learn the language, and generally keep themselves apart come off worst, but that's largely their own fault.
"It was such a shock to come back to the UK and discover that most things can be done by filling in a form on a website, or making a phone call. People respond to emails, and phone back when they say they will..."
Yes and a flight of pigs just flew over the bungalow.
That's fair enough.
It's all easier now as everything is online.
And if you worked in Sophia, the Chamber of Commerce (CCI Nice Côte d'Azur) have alway done cartes/titres de sejour for you.
You just had to go to the prefecture in Nice to pick up the card, and lately get fingerprinted. And even then the card is just posted now.
French politics don't really concern me, I don't vote. Unless you mean the politics of the town, in which case "Chocolat" is truth in television in that the locals will know what you're doing before you do, so try not to seem too alien.
French taxes? I pay less here than I did in the UK.
French bureaucracy? Even the Frenchies mock it. Just accept, as I did, that in some dark dingy basement of the local CPAM building, there will be at least fifty copies of your birth certificate, and a few dozen copies of your passport. And then they'll issue you a carte vitale (health card) or driving licence or whatever in your birth name which might not match any other piece of identity you have, and that this nonsense is completely normal. Oh, and you'll need this paper notarised, this paper translated into Norman French, and this paper offered to one of The Ancient Gods. And don't expect to hear anything for months, until you get a letter telling you that your interview and/or collection is yesterday at the other end of the region. Again, this is normal. They're not picking on Brits, it's a pencil pusher exercising the tiny modicum of power they have over anyone. If you complain, they'll ask for bits of paper you don't need and send you away for another round. If you're polite and speak French they will be more accommodating.
Haven't found much I miss from the UK. Tetley and Heinz Beans are available on Amazon, and the local supermarket does Scottish cheddar and cheddar from Somerset (but I prefer the Seriously Strong). To be honest, pretty much the only thing I miss is the ability to walk into a bookshop and buy something to read for pleasure (rather than getting hung up on verb tenses and all that crap). But, you know, Bezos again.
I find the people are much more polite, some even want to talk, some even do so in varying degrees of English (but then my French isn't great, so...). It's a much calmer way of life. This morning I went to feed kitty and realised I hadn't locked the door last night (dead tired). Not smart, but not the end of the world.
I hang out in a dark damp corner of Brittany. The considered advice from the locals is "please don't consider Paris to be representative of France or the French".
And whatever you do, never ever try to be "more French than the French". It generally comes across as patronising, especially if you're like a twat I knew who actually told some friendly French children that they were doing the whole air kissing thing wrongly. The fu...? What an idiot.
French politics don't really concern me, I don't vote. Unless you mean the politics of the town, in which case "Chocolat" is truth in television in that the locals will know what you're doing before you do, so try not to seem too alien.
Oh, that's true.
French taxes? I pay less here than I did in the UK.
I doubt that, once you add all the "charge sociales" to the bill. France is just behind Denmark in being the most highly-taxed state in Europe. Maybe if you have a low wage, and nothing 'exotic' like stock options, you might pay a little less in some cases.
French bureaucracy? Even the Frenchies mock it. Just accept, as I did, that in some dark dingy basement of the local CPAM building, there will be at least fifty copies of your birth certificate, and a few dozen copies of your passport. And then they'll issue you a carte vitale (health card) or driving licence or whatever in your birth name which might not match any other piece of identity you have, and that this nonsense is completely normal. Oh, and you'll need this paper notarised, this paper translated into Norman French, and this paper offered to one of The Ancient Gods. And don't expect to hear anything for months, until you get a letter telling you that your interview and/or collection is yesterday at the other end of the region. Again, this is normal. They're not picking on Brits, it's a pencil pusher exercising the tiny modicum of power they have over anyone. If you complain, they'll ask for bits of paper you don't need and send you away for another round. If you're polite and speak French they will be more accommodating.
All true, infuriating, and unnecessary, but since "fonctionnaires" are pretty much unsackable, they have to keep them occupied, and paid for by the French taxpayer.
Haven't found much I miss from the UK. Tetley and Heinz Beans are available on Amazon, and the local supermarket does Scottish cheddar and cheddar from Somerset (but I prefer the Seriously Strong).
All those were available in my local supermarkets, although they haven't discovered Branston pickle yet :-) They even have a decent selection of gin these days.
To be honest, pretty much the only thing I miss is the ability to walk into a bookshop and buy something to read for pleasure (rather than getting hung up on verb tenses and all that crap).
That was a problem in the early days, I used to hit Waterstones or Borders every time I was in an English-speaking country, but once my French was comfortable I could get plenty to read in the local FNAC or independent bookshop.
I find the people are much more polite, some even want to talk, some even do so in varying degrees of English (but then my French isn't great, so...).
Outside of Paris that's definitely true, I got on very well with my neighbours and we still stay in touch. I think they speak reasonable English, but are shy about using it, so we generally ended up in French.
The considered advice from the locals is "please don't consider Paris to be representative of France or the French".
True, the rest of France only likes Paris in August, when the Parisians have all left for their holiday homes round the Med. I do my best to avoid Paris as much as I can, horrible city.
Doesn't take much Googling to discover that one of the major causes appears to be a rise in the levels of heavy metals found in fish/seafood, which when correlated with France being one of the EU's major consumers of seafood is why it's showing more in the French population.
Given British rivers contain actual shit, what's getting into your food? Heavy metals aren't good (unless Sabaton), but there are all sorts of pathogens that will flatten a person long before cancer from a salmon eaten twenty years ago will be an issue. Speaking of which, shall we talk about mutated prions? You know I'm ineligible for blood donations because of that.
So, you know, glass houses and all...
He moved things to Singapore, because guess who was in negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with the EU at the time (and got it a few years later)? Oh, yes... Singapore. So Mr Brexit Smartypants maintained access to the EU for his products by shifting the HQ and the factory, while claiming that all engineering expertise would stay in the UK. Righto then.
He also bought a massive penthouse in Singapore, although apparently he sold it again a few years later. I wonder why that is.
Dyson bought two properties in Singapore, sold the penthosue at a loss. That's a skill in a rising property market.
Source:
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/property/dysons-sell-3-storey-penthouse-at-wallich-residence-in-singapore-for-62-million
I've got a Numatic hoover - it has a bag and almost sucks the slippers off my feet whilst hoovering.
...and in a decade or two when something finally wears out, you'll be able to get the spare part easily and cheaply and also be able to repair it without any difficulty.
I remember the last time I offered to have a look at a friend's Dyson when it stopped working (as usual, just shortly after the guarantee was out.) It had worn through the motor brushes already, which wouldn't have been a major issue had the motor been designed with the barest drop of common sense or competency. In fact it was scrap, because once the brushes had worn down it continued to merrily feed the metal part behind them into the motor, completely trashing it.
At first I thought that it was great that there was a big supply of Dyson parts for repairing them. Then, after working on my own, family devices, and at a repair cafe, I suddenly figured it out. There is a large supply of parts because the friggin' things are so shite. Very happy now with a Henry in the workshop, and a Sebo for in the house. Much better performance than a Dyson, and they don't break!
When Dyson vacuums first appeared I was working in retail at the time.
We had endless lines of the wretched things returned and either replaced refunded or exchanged for a Sebo (they actually work). I have never seen so much hype on such a useless product.
Marketing at it's absolute best.
'Henry' vacs etc have been a staple here in the UK for years.
My personal preference these days is for a vacuum cleaner that works for me - which modern Dysons do not. Not enough grunt, plastic parts wear out, batteries or other electrical bits fail way too soon to suit *this* director's[1] depreciation policy.
My personal favorite now that Vorwerk have lost the plot a bit is for a corded and bagged Miele, with the air-driven brush head (the air-driven head is mandatory - that's what turns it from average to brilliant). Far less faff than a Dyson and spares/bags/filers etc. are cheap as chips/fries if you look in the right places. I have a 'Cat & Dog TT 2000' model that is well over a decade old (maybe 15 YO?) and is still going strong. If it gums up on something, it's repairable and simple to extract or unwind the ingested obstruction. Recently bought a more modern one for my elderly mother....she loves the result as it brings up the pile on the equally elderly carpet :-)
Whilst we're on about products like that, I was told by a very senior colleague a while back that he once sold a product to remove water/condensate from snowmobile fuel tanks.. drop one in the fuel tank and it 'vacuumed' up (absorbed, actually) the water at the bottom of the tank, thus avoiding a common cause of snowmobile failures out in the wilds where people depended on them. The marketing tagline for it was 'This product sucks!'. I don't 'do' marketing, but I thought that was quite a good line.
[1] I'm not C-suite - just a 'director' of my own destiny :-)
Light aircraft have a drain point at the lowest point of the fuel tank/engine. You push a clear inspection flask into the plug and drain off the liquid looking for water contamination. Keep draining samples until it comes through with the right colours. Seems much simpler than trying to suck it upward from the bottom.
"I've got a Numatic hoover"
Upvote for that. Nice bit of very simple, reliable kit, have one in the workshop. The motor is at the top, so it doesn't lose suction as the bag fills up. And made in Surrey I think. A few years ago they featured in one of those 'How do they make that' programmes - proving you can have a profitable appliance manufacturing operation in the UK.
I have a Henry for my DIY/renovation muck. It gets a lot of debris, plaster dust, you name it thrown at it, and it just keeps trucking. You can even stand on it if you don't have a step ladder handy. Bullet-proof, cheap as chips and British, an almost unheard of combination.
Also have a Dyson and whilst it has a lot of clever touches and is very competent it just seems overly complicated and much too expensive by comparison. That said the 'impostor' brands are a total waste of money. I had a look-alike Vax that died after a few months, total electrical failure, then its replacement ate its own dust filter and expired in a puff of dust.
I bought a cheapish Electrolux. My main criteria was that it used bags. I was an asthmatic child, and nothing focusses your mind quite like the lungs saying "nope, not gonna" and hoping you can find that stupid inhaler gizmo and shoot a bunch of noxious gases and steroids in there before passing out while in increasing pain. So, these stupid trendy vacuums that collect all the gunk in a bowl to be tipped out? Nope, nope, and even more nope.
The first thing I cleaned up was a load of paint scrapings from the window all over the ground out front. Changed the bag, good as new.
Oh, and +1 for the Henry. Had one in the UK, amazingly solid and endlessly reliable.
You might be thinking of another Brexit-backing "entrepreneur"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/ineos-wales-france-cars-brexit-b1768142.html
The chemical conglomerate, controlled by prominent Brexit supporter Sir Jim Ratcliffe, said it will build the vehicles at the former Mercedes-Benz factory in Hambach, Moselle, following a deal with the German carmaker.
Production of a new vehicle inspired by the Land Rover Defender was due to begin in Bridgend next year, creating around 500 jobs once production reached full capacity.
The plant would have been built next to the Ford engine plant at Bridgend, which recently closed with the loss of 1,700 jobs.
Ineos said on Tuesday the French factory was "well located for access to markets, suppliers and automotive talent".
Alright then clever clogs, why don't you share your LOLs with us inferior plebs - which bit of the quoted text from the Indy is incorrect?
Ratcliffe really did shout about building his Grenadier in the UK, and really did change his mind when he realised how much that would cost him due to his beloved Brexit. And as I've pointed out before, he did all this from the safety of his tax-haven domicile in Monaco.
> "You're quoting the Independent!!!! LOL"
Not bothering to dispute anything the article actually claims though, are you? "LOL!!!!" ;-)
Here are the same facts from another source, no doubt from those leftist, woke, tofu eating anti-Brexit saboteurs at the Guardian:-
> It began rolling off the company’s production line in Hambach in France in October last year.
> Costing from £55,000, deliveries began in December. The motor was the brainchild of Sir Jim, who had the idea in a London pub also named The Grenadier.
> It was initially going to be made in Bridgend, south Wales, but the company was able to purchase a ready-made factory from Mercedes, which gave it better access to suppliers. The company denied that the decision was motivated by Brexit.
Wait, no, that was from the strongly pro-Brexit "flagship" of the Tory-supporting broadsheets, The Daily Telegraph.
Damn, let's try again...
> The new Grenadier vehicles are being built by British petro-chemical billionaire Ratcliffe at a newly-acquired factory on the Franco-German border in Hambach, which he bought from Mercedes-Benz parent firm Daimler in January 2021 - a decision that came under strong criticism after Ineos Automotive had previously unveiled plans to build a state-of-the-art facility in Bridgend, Wales, which would have secured hundreds of jobs in Britain.
What a DISGUSTING, ANTI-BRITISH SMEAR against a TRUE BREXITEER PATRIOT from those metropolitan elite Marxist scum at "This Is Money", owned by the, er.... Daily Mail?
Damn those inconvenient facts!!!!!!!!!111111 ;-)
Sounds like this generation's version of (Sir) Clive Sinclair.
We went through this "Build world beating thingy and bring lots of jobs to the UK (got any subsidies?)" a generation or two ago. It never works out, at least not for the taxpayer or workforce.
"The chemical conglomerate, controlled by prominent Brexit supporter Sir Jim Ratcliffe,"
Funny thing is, one week when Ratcliffe was going on about the expected benefits of Brexit, there was an item in The Chemical Engineer about the Ineos UK operations folk complaining how having to comply with two separate chemicals regulations (EU REACH and its new UK equivalent) instead of one was going to cost them a lot of time and money. So much for reducing bureaucracy :(
He wanted to get a grant from UK tax payers so the design work for an electric vehicle would be done here but manufactured in Singapore. He got a £17M grant, spent £7.8M then found to get a product to market would cost at least £2.5B - and Singapore is not a particularly cheap place for manufacturing. The entire project was scrapped and much to my shock I found reports that the UK got our £7.8M back.
According to the telegraph:
CLARIFICATION: We have been asked to make clear that Dyson voluntarily returned the grant money on closure of the project, although it had undertaken much of the activity for which the funds were awarded. We acknowledge that it did so without any discussion with Ministers, and are happy to clarify.
I can easily believe that Ministers had no part in getting the money back but the rest seems completely fantastic.
Yup, he sucks a lot more than his overpriced vacuum cleaners.
I find it staggering that so-called luminaries of industry have't quite worked out that isolationism doesn't even work for farming anymore, let alone any industrial activity. The only area where that can work for a while until the rot sets in (i.e. rampant abuse) is finance, which tells you all you need to know about where the Brexit lunacy came from. Sure, it richly relied on the inherent hate of foreigners of a still far too large part of the population (ask Megan Markle) to get its way, but as far as I can tell the core motivation was to escape those pesky European rules which seek to prevent US-style financial disasters from repeating themselves. And lo, in the US they already have..
Dyson is welcome to go. It's not like he's contributing anything to the UK anymore, so he might as well sod off.
The main purpose of the UK's presence in the EU was never to contribute to the club, more to keep it disorganised so the economic bloc didn't become a threat or serious competitor to the US. Turns out they're quite capable of sufficiently fighting amongst themselves to keep it from forming cohesive aims, but Putin wandering into Ukraine has at least re-created some unity - the uniting idea of a common enemy still works.
This is also why the US lost interest in the UK post Brexit - the only remaining utility of the UK for the US is now hosting their various spy mechanisms - ECHELON is still going strong (well, retasked as wireless signals are no longer the most important intelligence asset).
In other words, that too boils down to economics..
All IMHO, of course
"Your demonstrate your ignorance of the purpose of the EU very clearly."
You demonstrate the standard inability of the quitling to spell or type. However, please illuminate us in our feeble ovine darkness - what is the "purpose" of the EU ?
If you can't tell us without stringing a load of fantasy cobblers together, or sneering without any substance (we already have codejunky for that), then maybe sitting there displaying your tinfoil hattery is not such a great idea.
Well yes, the shine wore off quickly, and then the flow of dodgy Russian money into London stopped as well, thanks to Putin's war with Ukraine - I suspect that wasn't quite planned for by the Brexiteers. Oops..
I think the next time anyone takes such a monumental decision about the UK's future it should not be on a 50/50 vote, but on a 2/3 majority. And the first one under that condition should be "do we want to reverse Brexit so we can actually have a working economy again?". I think that vote may hit that 67% target.
the flow of dodgy Russian money into London stopped as well, thanks to Putin's war with Ukraine
I believe that the flow stopped because Boris Johnson and his merry bands of thieves, brigands and layabouts happily took their "hard-earned" cut of the dodgy Russian money funding Brexit - and probably other things - yet they still turned on Russia immediately, the front-runner being Boris Johnson getting himself in front of the support for Ukraine.
I bet Putin didn't see that one coming.
I believe that the flow stopped because Boris Johnson and his merry bands of thieves, brigands and layabouts happily took their "hard-earned" cut of the dodgy Russian money funding Brexit - and probably other things - yet they still turned on Russia immediately, the front-runner being Boris Johnson getting himself in front of the support for Ukraine.
Oh, absolutely, but that's why the flow stopped - they could not politically afford to piss off the US even further. And so, that source of income vanished too.
I think that it wasn't Brexit alone, though, it was Brexit + Covid + Ukraine: there was no slack left in the system, and that was already low because it was milked to an inch of its life by people who didn't exactly contribute much in return. I don't gree with taxing people to death, but if you took, say, 25% off everyone including those who could comfortably afford it with some lessening at the bottom you'd end up with more tax revenue than by stoppoing people earning too much because they and in a new tax bracket and so stop progress and the high earners avoiding tax altogether. But maybe that just shows I know sod all about economics, I just know logic..
"The only area where that can work for a while until the rot sets in (i.e. rampant abuse) is finance"
Possibly for large scale stuff. But not for the retail/small business end of the market: I'm based in the Netherlands but used to get my professional indemnity insurance from some specialist brokers in Birmingham. They are no longer covered by passporting, so I had to move my business to a firm in Amsterdam :(
I currently work in medium-frequency trading. I previously worked in low-latency trading. Since this career move I've worked for three separate finance firms.
The first responded to Brexit by moving its European office from London to Amsterdam.
The second slimmed its London office down to about three employees and moved all the substantial work to an existing office in Dublin.
The third has yet to do much in Europe but obviously London isn't much of a contender.
If finance is to blame then it must be a very provincial subset. For everybody else the additional barriers between the UK and the EU are a burden to be avoided if possible.
It was not a comment about class, it was a comment about his arrogance vs the barely sufficient quality of the products he makes. Also his "investing far more in modern, forward-looking economies elsewhere in the world that encourage growth and innovation" means where workers are cheap as possible working in miserable conditions until a whistleblower lets the cat out of the bag.
In his company's defense, their hairdryers *are* better, but as their prices are nothing short of obscene that hasn't had any impact on the market. For the price of one you can have 10 made in another cheap labour part of the world.
What has Dyson's comments got to do with Horizon? You do actually understand that those are two completely separate things, and that NONE of the things that Dyson is complaining about would be fixed by Horizon funding?
I know a lot of people find Dyson a fairly difficult character, and yada yada Brexit bad, but "rocketing corporation tax, damaging work-from-home legislation, and rules on "non-compete" clauses for workers which only extend to three months" is nothing to do with Brexit is it? It's entirely the choice of the current, totally incompetent government. And nor does Horizon pay for "science and math teachers the state education sector so seriously lacks", does it?
Frankly the poor understanding around this topic is more suitable to reporting in the Daily Mail than what is meant to be a serious industry news source.
While his complaints may be valid, the fact remains that if you are going to invest in Europe it makes more sense to do so within the single market. If you are going to go outside that market you might as well go somewhere where it is more economical to do so.
Which is exactly what Dyson did. Of course, he wanted Brexit so ordinary workers can be treated worse like they are in developing countries, but it clearly hasn't happened quickly enough for him.
That's a totally different topic to the one of this article, which *repeatedly* suggests that Horizon would solve the things Dyson is critical of.
Your response also magically ignores the investment he has made in the education and research centre in the UK, which currently is significantly better funded than most university departments of the same type. Or does that not fit the "developing countries" narrative?
Dyson has made it clear that he regards the whole of Europe as the 'sick man' of technology development - and he may have a point given America and Asia totally dominate the sector at the moment. If he's suggesting ways in which Britain could be as innovative, he's a rarity amongst the usual commentators on sites like this who are far more interested in telling everyone how bad things are.
Dyson has made it clear that he regards the whole of Europe as the 'sick man' of technology development - and he may have a point given America and Asia totally dominate the sector at the moment.
I agree. I'm trying to avoid US funding for a concept that one bank's analysts have already valued at just over €2Bn in Y5, and that's without doing anything super innovative and it's nigh impossible. The problem with US funding is that (a) they want pretty much all of it and (b) it automatically makes your work subject to fun US laws such as the Cloud Act which poses a major risk to any tech outfit if not addressed from the start - so I'm still looking :(.
That's a totally different topic to the one of this article, which *repeatedly* suggests that Horizon would solve the things Dyson is critical of.
The article mentions Horizon *once* when talking about UK's ability to compete in science. That's competing in science, not making vacuum cleaners. Dyson seems to confuse the two and talk about innovation when he means he wants to make household goods more cheaply. How much of a non-compete clause do you need if you're making fans or hand dryers? SpaceX he ain't.
"Dyson has made it clear that he regards the whole of Europe as the 'sick man' of technology development"
Which is why virtually all the high density semiconductors in the world are made on Dutch-manufactured equipment
marketing is not the same as reality and Dyson is a marketer, not an engineer
Seriously?
If that was an actual advantage, Europe would also have a semiconductor industry. The recent news of Germany's attempts at trying to buy their way back into the fab business should have made it abundantly clear that it does not.
It's also worth remembering that ASML was formed with Philips - remind us all how they're doing these days? Or which countries have leading EV development? Ecommerce? Cloud infrastructure?...
Don't worry, Europe has Nokia, Ericsson and... oh.
"Which is why virtually all the high density semiconductors in the world are made on Dutch-manufactured equipment"
Proves nothing at all. ASML make world-class EUV-lithography equipment, but that's it. Otherwise, there's Infineon and perhaps Nokia-Ericsson. And a few low density chip companies for the automotive industry, which mostly have been sold to the Chinese.
So that'll be why wages have increased and the cost of living has declined since Brexit, leading to the greatest increase in Britain's living standards in decades? Wow, how great.
Oh, er, wait *checks notes*, seems that's...not what happened. How strange.
The cost of living has primarily increased due to the huge inflation in energy and food costs. Unfortunately for your narrative, neither of these had anything to do with Brexit and everything to do with Russia invading their next door neighbour.
Unfortunately for *your* narrative, we can do this thing called "comparing", where we look at how Britain's economy has fared compared to how every economy in the EU has fared over the same period. According to New Labour Rishi's argument, Britain should be doing much better, right? Whatever the impact of Russia's invasion, the EU should be just as badly affected, so Britain should still be doing *comparatively* better, what with all the benefits of Brexit.
Only...it's not. It's doing significantly worse, on every conceivable measurable metric.
> No, it isn't. Stop reading the Grauniad, and try living in, say, France or Germany for a while.
Yes, it is. From https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/, for example: "Compared to the pre-pandemic level, UK GDP in Q1 2023 was 0.5% lower. This compares with Eurozone GDP being 2.5% higher than its pre-pandemic level, while US GDP was 5.3% higher.". Sources: OECDstat & ONS.
Now, what ridiculously fucking stupid thing did the UK do to itself to fuck its own economy that badly, I wonder?
Also interesting you automatically assumed anything that doesn't fit your dumbfuck Brexiloon narrative automatically came from the "Grauniad". Reality sucks, doesn't it.
> Believe me, you'll be happy to escape (I was).
I highly doubt you were ever there. Just some more bullshit you just made up.
I live in France.
It's great.
I have not the slightest inclination to return to my country of birth in the state it currently finds itself, which I regret greatly. Literally everything* is better here.
-A.
*Well, not literally. Le Pen is a bit of a worry. You've got Braverman, of course.
I wonder how many times we have to repeat that the problem lies with our absolutely woeful government and wider parliamentary intake?
As strawmen go, you're doing well though. No one is claiming the UK is doing as well as it should - just some of us have moved on since 2016.
I'm failing to see the logic here. "Britain is doing badly" (your claim) "... therefore we should ignore the suggestion to do things differently" (I paraphrase the general argument here).
As for the claim Britain is doing badly, it's funny how carefully people cherry pick the periods they want to compare. And how the problems in Germany, France, Italy are conveniently ignored - the great advantage of only going there on holiday.
Just to be clear - Rishi is a disaster, we should be doing things differently. Brexit will deliver no benefits at all if we carry on trying to be "little Europe" as the holidaymakers wish. That doesn't mean we should pander to the nut-job Brexiteers, but we should actually try running our economy like an independent trading nation, rather than getting all teary eyed over some nostalgic (and largely misleading) fantasy of how lovely it all used to be.
"we should actually try running our economy like an independent trading nation, rather than getting all teary eyed over some nostalgic (and largely misleading) fantasy of how lovely it all used to be."
An independent trading nation? In a global economy? How well is that going? What has it got to do with holidaymakers? We were part of the largest single trading bloc in the world - it wasnt perfect, agreed, but we were able to climb out of the cesspit of being the sick man of Europe fairly quickly, and business was booming. How's that doing now?
"The cost of living has primarily increased due to the huge inflation in energy and food costs. Unfortunately for your narrative, neither of these had anything to do with Brexit and everything to do with Russia invading their next door neighbour."
Unfortunately for you, energy costs were skyrocketing before Russia goose stepped into Ukraine. Most EU countries had gas reserves which they used to cushion the blow for consumers and iindustry. We had a massive storage capacity until the government (tory) chose not to pay towards the maintenance costs, leaving Centrica to fund them on its own. The UK gas storage therefore was limited to about 4 days' worth.
Oh, and energy costs in the EU were capped while ours went insane.
Do go on.
"Unfortunately for you, energy costs were skyrocketing before Russia goose stepped into Ukraine. "
No they weren't... they skyrocketed after the global covid fiasco, but were coming back down again until Putin started his little excursion. Also, your point about "most EU countries" having gas reserves and the UK having shut down its storage has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU or membership thereof; you are lumping together everything that could be perceived as negative and attributing it directly to Brexit. None of this would have been any different for the UK had we still been a "member" of the EU.
"So saturating a Labour market with cheap labour, forcing wages down and forcing the cost of living higher is more palatable to you.
Thats exactly what the EU was doing."
Which is why wages in Europe are generally higher than here, of course. Along with social benefits. Doesn't really fit with the rabid anti EU nonsense though, so I'm sure you'll ignore it.
If you can't see the connection between Dyson complaining about the neglect of sci-tech biz and the UK not being part of Horizon, then this whole article will not make sense to you, I guess. Similarly, if you can't see the link between funding science in the UK and that parlaying into more interest in STEM and teaching STEM, then again, this article isn't for you.
In our vulture's opinion - and it's an opinion article, it's our writer's view - the two are related. And so far you're doing a really terrible job at changing our minds.
BTW the stuff about corporation tax etc is just included because, well, he brought it up. Science is the main thrust of the piece.
C.
"What has Dyson's comments got to do with Horizon?"
Nothing, that's what's wrong with them.
The Times' headline above the article was "PM's focus on science is hot air says Dyson".
TFA describes Horizon as "EU's €95.5 billion ($91 billion) science investment vehicle".
If Dyson was really concerned about UK science he should be concerned that we're not involved with Horizon. We're not because of people like him so it's not surprising that he's avoiding the topic.
That's a remarkable logical fallacy. Horizon is a very, very long way from being the only way to support science, technology and innovation.
Hence my original point "Why are we not investing in science and technology?" is an entirely different question from "Why are we not in Horizon?".
It's typical of the Europhile thinking that the only way to invest is to hand money over to a committee in Brussels to allocate as they wish. Such a deep blindspot indeed, that we get articles like this one that equate a single science program (that has been in place whilst Europe has fallen behind in semiconductors, AI, battery technology, solar, EVs... it's quite a long list) with "investing in technology".
But as ever, some people are so determined that their politically favoured answer is the only acceptable reply, that they will shout down anyone daring to suggest that this government should actually live up to it's promises and invest directly. For all his faults, Dyson has put his money where his mouth is when it comes to investing in skills training, research centres and design and development. He's also taken risks with products - which is something notably absent from most of the institutional 'innovation' programmes that only want to support science after you've got a proven working product.
Perhaps, but then you spend 3000 to 10000 on medical insurance premiums, depending on your situation, family and employer. The you STILL pay for services rendered, depending on the service, and you won't know how much that bill will be until AFTER you had the service. And because your health care is tied to your employer, if you see better benefits at another employer, then you'll need to go at a minimum a month without health insurance, or pay COBRA which is ungodly expensive until the new employer's health insurance can profit off of your random bad luck and misery... I mean insure your health and well-being. Just don't get an life-long illness or something that needs monthly follow-up if you hate your current job or want to start your own business. Or hope you don't get injured during holiday or you will pay extra for not being a good drone and staying at work!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wpHszfnJns
One of the first things they teach you in university economics is that the free-market works when both parties are willing participants. That is obviously not how health services work. I don't hold off on getting cancer because I want a new vehicle. Private insurance companies have a sweet deal because your are forced to do business with them with the threat of death. So, medical debt or death? I know what most people chose and we can see that by the average medical debt that Americans carry around. I don't know why we continue to pretend that the free-market works in medical service costs.
So, medical debt or death?
I recently found myself enjoying^W enduring a 4-day stay in hospital [1]. Intravenous antibiotics 3/day, painkillers and other medication 4/day. Since then, several follow-up sessions and more antibiotics plus anti-nausea medication. Leading to an operation under general to open up my hand to drain the infection from the joint at the base of my thumb. Plus various tests done on the bacteria that they cleaned from the wound to ensure that they were giving me the correct antibiotics as well as hand x-rays to make sure that there's no other joint damage.
Because I'm in the UK, it was free at the point of use (paid for by all our taxes). I shudder to think how much it would have all cost in the US.. (in addition to the regular medication that I'm on - one of which, if I had to pay for, would be about £10k/year)
The NHS certainly isn't perfect (and the 4 days proved that - the ward was way understaffed with the nurses on-shift working at top speed all the time just to manage the workload and left hand often didn't know right hand existed let alone talk to them - as a T2 diabetic, when I was on nil-by-mouth I should have been on a drip to maintain blood glucose but, even though the surgeon knew that, the ward staff manifestly didn't until I made a fuss about it) - the staff in the wards did their best but were being managed by people who made Edwardian time-and-motion martinets look like relaxed stoners.
[1] Embarrassingly, a cat-bite to the base of my left thumb (cat was having a pain seizure, tried to bite his hip and managed to get me instead with a full-pressure bite that punctured the joint capsule.). Cue hand that started to bloat alarmingly after a day or so with a red line starting to move up the lymph pathways of my arm, almost up to the armpit. After 3 days of intravenous antibiotics, infection wasn't under control, hence the operation. A pure accident that no-one could have forseen.
Yes but though I pay $25K a year in medical insurance and copays for our family of five, the extra $150K I make compared to what I'd be on in London more than compensates. Still don't understand wtf happened to salary growth back home, I made 110K pounds in 1999/2000 then moved to California. Research suggests I'd be lucky to make 140-150K now, despite two decades of inflation.
I know for a fact that my US colleagues get 2x what I do, and their cost of living is lower.
Which bit of the US is that imaginary Utopia?
I know for a fact that my US colleagues earned 2x what I did (and I was on 100k euros/year), but after paying for all the essentials like housing and medical care I had much more disposable income than they did, didn't have a 2-hour each way commute, and generally had a far better lifestyle. US cost of living is horrifying, unless you're living in the middle of redneck nowhere.
That's just not true, what costs, and where? There's massive regional variations here in US, but the UK has some of that too especially in housing.
Where were you on 100K Euro, I made 230 in Dublin and certainly didn't feel like that much once taxes and housing costs were taken into account.
My 4 bedroom house with a garden and a garage is comparable in price to one in the home counties, despite being in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in California. All my utilities are lower, as is my insurance, food costs etc. Cars, appliances, etc. are less, let alone the price of petrol, though arguably that's not a good thing, but I'll enjoy my 5 liter Rover until it dies then go electric.
Again despite California being high comparative to rest of US, my taxes are less here than they'd be in UK. 10% sales tax rather than 20% VAT, income plus property taxes work out to about 25% of income. Traffic sucks so can kind of agree with the commute part, Americans think nothing of driving an hour here and there, I've been mostly WFH for twenty years but it does suck to have a two hour drive to a meeting once or twice a month. But South East England ain't great on that front, if we came back we'd look at a village in Surrey or Hampshire most likely and have exactly the same kind of lengthy irregular commute.
Even if unpopular at the New Censored Wokister™ and with its darwinistically shifted readership (mission accomplished?), the UK's decline has little to do with Brexit, and much with the current neoliberal, undemocratic, neomarxist state of the whole West, and with mistakes made many years ago. Germany is the most un-Brexit-y country in the EU, but it is also going downhill at a rapid speed. The difference is that they started from a higher standard than the UK.
"Doesn't seem to be going downhill where I am."
What *on earth* does this kind of selectivity prove?
'Looks up, sees a green field and a blue sky while typing this' -> So?
You could find dozens of German independent media outlets that strongly criticise what is going on in Germany, or you could rely on Spiegel, ARD and taz. Now what? Even the NZZ from Switzerland has become highly critical of Germany.
My experience and that of my friends, family and colleagues is different from that which the media publishes in their news agenda.
Of course there are notable exceptions, like Berlin Brandenburg Airport and the military only possessing two days ammunition + two working helicopters..feel free to complete the list..
"... current neoliberal, undemocratic, neomarxist state of the whole West "
Hi Teejay,
Could you explain that a bit? As far as I'm aware 'neoliberal' refers to a right of centre, free market system, while 'Marxist' (and presumably 'neomarxist') refers to a left of centre command economy. So I think the two are mutually exclusive. How could they exist within one country or region? Please elucidate us.
The man that invented a vacuum cleaner that can be cloned out of 3D printed parts.
I"m not kidding!
Me and a mate built a vacuum cleaner for a laugh (alright, alright I know) out of old scrap server bits (fans etc) and a 3D printer. We were bored alright?
...and you know what, we were able to tune it to pick up fish tank gravel, cage nuts, wet cornflakes and various other shit we threw on the floor.
Yeah his vacuums might have been revolutionary...but honestly, who at that time was waking up with itchy balls to make a more powerful vacuum cleaner? Its not the most exciting or challenging engineering challenge...let's be honest.
Clearly that is the case, because commercial vacuum cleaners are still, for the most part, crap.
If I learnt anything its that vacuum cleaner technology is an exercise in getting the lowest quality, cheapest components and trying to get a minimally viable product out of them that has some sort of marketable number associated with it...e.g. "Four cyclone cylinders!".
Yeah indeed...what the fuck do they mean?
My vacuum consisted of what was essentially a box with 4 extremely powerful screaming server wood chipping fans, I think they were 23,000 rpm or something crazy like that, they could do something like 150CFM...they came out of a Supermicro server and they were made by Delta...so they were serious, noisy, dangerous fans. Under the fans we used some foam packing that we found for rudimentary filters (and we had to macgyver a way to hold the filters in place, because, shredded foam is messy, but we were able to hoover it up afterwards) as we discovered small things would shoot through the fans like bullets straight up into your face.
Beneath the filters, we experimented with some different 3D models to act as conduits for the individual fans that tapered down to a single point. Which seemed to increase suction...a bit like a Dyson...from the taper we experimented with different arrangements of PVC pipe to divert debris etc into a separate bag.
For power and control we used a Chinesium 12v PSU that could deliver 10A through an old golf cart PWM accelerator module (I had a spare one, because I bought two when I was building a way to control the fans in my rack, which I set at 3% and no higher because they are fucking mental). We added that because going straight from 0 to 11 was scary so a gentle ramp up was necessary and we didn't need 100% power to get decent results. That said, at 100% with the fans flipped around and the filters removed, we did achieve a pretty decent leaf blower.
The end result was an ugly looking thing that sucked up a surprising amount of stuff that made your ears bleed.
Which proves my point, Dyson is not really an engineer.
I never said my product had round corners and was coated in the finest gold leaf. I just said that it sucked up shit from the ground really well, which is the most important part of a vacuum cleaner.
I'm an engineer, not a wanker, I make things that are functional and practical...I'm not in the business of making things stylish. If I was, I wouldn't be an engineer. I'd be an industrial designer making crappy statement pieces.
I answer questions like:
Is it too heavy to pick up?
Can it launch a potato 200m?
Is it portable?
Does it need mains power, or can we run it off a battery?
Is plywood strong enough?
Is there enough flux in that solder?
What can I make with that pile of parts in the corner?
I haven't a clue about these:
Will they like it in purple?
Should we make it look like it came from the set of Star Trek?
How can we make it more feminine?
Do we have the right chairs to go with the desks in the office?
How can we copyright it?
Does the box look good on a shelf?
Where did Steve Jobs get his Jeans from?
How do I wave my arms around at a presentation to make me seem like I'm in control?
Dyson didn't invent the air cyclone or even portable cyclone vacuum cleaners. Ditto for those hollow ring air-multiplier fans - those have been coming out of Japan since the 1960s
Given the company history of blinging up existing designs at an enormous markup (but calling it "new"), it's not really surprising Dyson bought into the "British Superiority" delusion
Incidentally, the single most effective advance in cleaners in the last 30 years has been exhaust recirculation - and the guy who invented the conept (multiple patents) it found it impossible to get anyone in Britain to show any interest in manufaturing it (including Dyson) despite achieving a 40% power consumption reduction and substantial decrease in PM2.5 output over nearly everything in existence
This out-of-touch rent seeker wants more non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements don't help business in general; they hinder them by reducing labour mobility, making it harder for competing businesses to hire the staff they need. It's an economic net-negative, and also grossly immoral because it chains workers to their employer, under threat of losing their livelihoods.
Look at the largest tech. development location in the world: California. Worker non-competes are illegal there.
Good riddance, Dyson! Stay in your grubby money-laundering island-dictatorship of Singapore and don't come back. You no longer have anything useful to contribute.
is a twat
And was'nt he the guy on setting up his 'technology and development center' refused to consider employing anyone over 35 because he believed they were 'past it'
Which explains why the roller spindle in my dyson hoover is made out of cheaply plated mild steel rather than either a fully galvinised mild steel spindle or a 303 stainless spindle.
because its gone orange where the plating has fallen off
People on both sides of the Brexit argument dont realise that everybody is losing in this modern world. People say leaving has hurt the economy, well Europe and USA arent much better. People are working longer and longer hours, house prices have gone up and its all the same cause. Its never going to end well when you compete against places like China where people work for far less and double the hours a week.
Chasing the economy bullshit is a game nobody should be playing because everybody loses. Dont judge your life on metrics from economists, judge the good times with family and friends. The economy is ruining everything, just look at all the idiots wasting tens of hours a week commuting....
@CowHorseFrog
One of the few intelligent comments here.
I seriously wonder, however, how much forums like these are infiltrated by NGO- and three letter agency-sockpuppets. Considering the US online propaganda budget alone is estimated at a two digits billion sum, that's not as far fetched as it seems.
The problem with all financial types is they are extremists and only count one thing and omit everything else.
They only count some money metric, and they forget first and foremost we are people and theres MORE to life than just living for your boss and job.
One day everyone will be old, and when you can barely walk or have a heart attack because you wasted yoru health working or commuting, you will realise all that career crap is worthless.
Sigh. I voted against Brexit, but this one-trick pony journalism is just bad. Why bother writing an article, when you could just write BUT WHAT ABOUT BREXIT, DYSON? Over and over again.
Putting up corporation tax higher than the EU average is not an effect of Brexit. Even if Brexit did all people had wanted it to, that wouldn't stop other things making Britain worse. This is such a basic concept to grasp.
"Sigh. I voted against Brexit, but this one-trick pony journalism is just bad."
I totally agree. Both the average tech journalist and the average poster here have gone down the road of cheap polarisation and oversimplification, which of course mostly plays into the hands of those with money and power.
The way everything is blamed on Brexit, which *could* have been a chance to actually 'take back control', whatever that means, instead of blaming incompetent, greedy, controlled politicians both in the UK *and* the EU...
But I give up. Most people are not capable of complex thoughts anymore, and, no, doing something with tech does *not* mean you're an intellectual.
Lindsay Clark, genre of remoaners who take every opportunity to paint Brexit in a completely negative light. Not keen on the democratic process?
James Dyson has invested £m’s in the UK and I too was initially critical of his off-shore move. However, if you read his book you will understand his frustration at the bureaucratic and slow planning process in the UK that stymied his desire to develop more on shore. I don’t agree with Dyson on everything but let’s have a balanced discussion, please. Your personal biases affect your journalistic narrative.
"Not keen on the democratic process?"
FFS, complaints about democracy from the Brexiteers who took the slenderest of margins - easily within the noise of the poll - and used it as a justification to do whatever they wanted. And who wouldn't run the referendum again to make sure - not even a confirmatory vote to certify everyone who voted for Brexit was happy with the deal we got.
Dyson has been a tax dodger for a long time. While legally ok, this is eequivalent to taking BILLIONs that build up the country with schools and hospitals and more.
He is leveraging the investment in schools and people that real british peopl ehave invested in with their taxes. James Dyson is nothing biut a parasite he wants others to pay tax to build the roads, education system and peace of Britain but he doesnt want to pay the tax that makes this possible.
If everyone followed his example there would be no schools or hospitals or roads in Britain.
Codejunky
Do you feel better now? Sit down and breathe. Brexit has happened. It's a shitshow, but you can still pretend all is well in the Unicorn Kingdom. Just keep posting some Tufton St. or IEA stuff. Those are the best forms of theraphy for the credulous Brexit Elite marks.
@AC
"But it is a clusterfuck for those who have a brain cell that works and are trying to do business in Europe"
Why? Is the EU so bad to do business with? And when we were inside the protectionist bloc we had to have the same restriction? Best do business with the rest of the world, its bigger and growing faster.
I suggest you read the poll in The Daily Brexpress.
The People™® have spoken: FAIL.
Ahhh this comments section is a throwback to the heady days of 2019. Gonna chuck in my 2p then run away.
Dyson is only interested in his own personal wealth, and when he chats about competitiveness he’s referring to his ability to make himself as much money as possible vs other billionaires. There’s nothing patriotic about saying “hey if you don’t allow me to pay less tax and treat my staff worse I’ll take even more of my business overseas”, this is what he wanted from Brexit though. He does not care about this country or its people, only himself.
Ok bye x
One more word on the UK, because most here really do not understand what made it tick and why it is going downhill.
The reason is not Brexit. The reason is that the UK was decades ago taken over by the 'financial industry', which produced absolutely nothing, and thrived on cheap money. Those times are over. Apart from that, Russian and Ukranian oligarchs as well as Saudi families parked their money there. That's basically half of the GDP of the last decades.
The tories are clowns. Labour are clowns. Brexit *could* have been a chance for more democracy versus a quite undemocratic EU. But that's not going to happen, and it's definitely not the reason the UK is going downhill.
There is hardly any manufacturing left in the UK, but in many ways that is true of the EU, too. It's all gone to Asia. And energy is owned by Russia and the Saudis. And then, of course, there is the huge welfare state.
(As some commentators here are unfamiliar with more complex views: Of course neoliberalism and neomarxism go hand in hand, just on different levels. They are both totalitarian and globalist, but of course, neither the BBC nor the Guardian tell you much on that.)
" Brexit *could* have been a chance for more democracy versus a quite undemocratic EU"
Care to explain that predictably commonplace accusation?
You sound like you are being reasonable right up until you repeat oft-quoted nonsense and end with a jibe at the BBC (that well-known bastion of woke lefties run by a bunch or Boris Johnson fans) and the Guardian. Neomarxism? What are you on about?
Once again Britain has never come to terms with the end of the Empire. The UK just isn't that important anymore, and hasn't been since 1945, except to itself. It never figured out that it was just a medium sized power. France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the Netherlands all did.
Is it a country ending thing if there isn't leading edge fabs located in the UK? They don't tend to employ many people and the tax environment makes them more expensive to operate in first world locations. The Tigers actively pursue companies to build fabs in their countries because it bolsters the roles of high tech jobs in-country so more students will consider an engineering degree which leads to more STEM businesses locating in the country that will be doing lots of export. There is also the magnifying effect of money when it's earned by rank and file employees that spend most of it locally. The sponsoring country doesn't need to tax the snot out of the business and instead gets even more tax via having more people more gainfully employed. The UK and US governments work their hardest to tax both ends and try to go after the middle if they can get away with it.
Non-compete? If you treat employees well and compensate them fairly for their work, they tend to stay on much longer. I've been presented with non-compete employee/contractor agreements and if they aren't struck, I walk away. I'd entertain one if I were selling a business and being compensated for that clause, but as an employee, I don't want to limit my job opportunities within the field I am most versed and have the best experience on my resume. I see a 3 month non-compete as abusive for a regular low level employee unless the company wishes to continue paying the person for those 3 months.
Businesses and especially large businesses have to locate their operations where they have the lowest costs that still meet their requirements. If a government spends too much tax revenue giving away free stuff to the segment of the population that contributes nothing and keeps increasing those payments, it's better for business to go someplace else. Too many people on the dole long term wind up not being very good citizens and tend to have children that follow in their footsteps. What company wants to be someplace where their building needs repainting on a weekly basis to cover up graffiti and needs to replace or board up broken windows too much of the time and has to make physical security too large of a department? If they can move their business to some other country, pay lower taxes and spend less on vandalism/security, it's a no-brainer. The added cost to then import their products into their former home winds up to be less than the cost to stay.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
