coprolite

Can't believe you forgot Paddy

Too far. The chancers chancers. Talentless poser hanger on twats.

Cypriots and Maltaish.

We finished 10th in 2021 and 3rd the next season.

Some maybe expect us to. But they’re definitely the benchmark of where we want to be. Not unreasonable given our playing budget and the nature of the league. I’ve put us fifth behind Kilmarnock in the P&B predictor. Still six weeks of the window

Awwwwww, trying so hard! it’s adorable

Don’t see it myself. Rubi can learn to be less stupid (although not very fast apparently) but he’s aggressive and wins stuff. MacDonald can be a bit of a bombscare too, just less spectacularly. He’s a solid squad player but a bottom six starter, imho

I’d say he’s first pick at cb. Do you reckon we’ll recruit more or do you prefer someone else we already have?

Injuries might happen but i reckon we'll need to get through a fair few suspensions too. Nilse, Shinnie and rubesic are nailed on for at least two each.

The Zutons put out some new stuff the other week there, that was a blast from the past.

A change over a couple if years isn't the same as a change over a couple of decades is it

This is a logically consistent argument but partly irrelevant to the real reason the benefit cap won't be lifted. The government isn't currently working on a structural overhaul of the UK's housing market. It would have a huge impact on poverty if they did, but they're shitebags and middle England loves the possibility that one day they can buy to let and they call the shots. Your point about political capital is relevant. The benefit cap isn't being kept became there's better things to spend money on. It's being kept so that tabloid headline writers don't dig up examples of ten child state funded layabouts to publish alongside the sory about how Keith is enabling them. There's a fair amount of doubt as to whether the benefit cap is a net saving. There are longer term costs to child poverty which are unquantifiable but probably large. I'd expect that the savings rate on the income is somewhere around nil, so that money will circulate with a decent fiscal multiplier. Part of the political choice here was to commit to not raising taxes. That's definitely something that costs more with less bang for the buck.

Lots of those are in places no one wants to live because there's no jobs, shite transport links to places with jobs and just generally because they're post industrial shitholes. It's not exactly the fault of individual landlords that Liverpool docks for example no longer serve the empire. On the other hand the pretence that tax breaks for buy to let landlords or furnished holiday lets do anything for the housing stock (see telegraph, mail etc) is laughable. Although i don't think landlords are entirely to blame for empty properties, there is no good argument for private landlords making any sort of contribution towards the economy and plenty of arguments that the UK housing market is not much more than a way for capital owners to extract the surplus created by labour. It's enclosure and clearances by anf for the petty bourgeois

There is a point. It helps you to understand whether any particular group is among the worst off in society. Agree it doesn't tell you whether they are actually poor. The absolute poverty line could be well below the relative poverty line or could be above the median (and probably is in the poorest countries). So it's pretty useless at telling you who's actually poor. But movements in the composition can identify (relative) winners and losers from changes in policy or events. The way the statistics have been presented in that report is not useful in the most part, but it does tell ud that there's been a significant change in the composition of the poorest part of society, which now includes more children. That's not sufficient to conclude that there are more poor children, but it's consistent with the possibility. Some people might think that's a good thing.

Chaka Demus and Pliers