RayC

There is another category. In 2016, I had been resident in Belgium for 17 years. I was therefore ineligible to vote in the referendum despite it (potentially) directly affecting my day-to-day life more than 99% of the electorate. Am I bitter? Absolutely; especially as this issue would have been simple to fix.

Your original post: "No they haven't. I'm in UK now. Things looking OK. Can't see any evidence of destruction." I would suggest that the sentence "Things looking OK." is fairly categoric rather than comparative, even within the context of the whole paragraph.

I didn't claim that it equaled "destruction". I was taking issue with your description that, "Things (are) looking ok".

Maybe where you are but not in parts of South London. Increased numbers of people sleeping rough and more food banks doesn't indicate that things are ok.

It's an illusion. Outside of the EU, the UK has little influence on the world stage. Biden shoehorning a 20-minute meeting with Sunak between landing and going off to the pub showed what importance the US now attaches to the UK. Unless you want to condemn the UK to economic decline, it will need to trade with the rest of the world. Contrary to what Michael Gove said in 2016, the UK does not hold all the cards: If we want trade deals with the US, India and China, the UK will have to play by their rules. The Brexit negotiations with the EU have shown that.

Surely there must be, at least, one MP who is courageous enough to put their political career at risk by tabling an 'Early Day Motion' on this subject? It's an outrage that such critical matters haven't been debated in Parliament.

Hardly (low risk(-free) strategy which is what is needed for a rainy day contingency fund. In any event not everyone has this level of knowledge about - or interest in - the financial markets. We both seem entrenched in our positions and neither of us seems able to convince the other with our respective argument, so I'm going to bow out of this exchange.

Then you are in the minority in being able to time the market (almost) to perfection.

You would have prepared for 5% interest rates at any point in time since 2010 (and presumably kept your money in an instant access/fixed rate short-term notice account)? If so, then you would have cost yourself an awful lot of money: £10k invested in an FTSE-Worldwide tracker fund would be worth +/-£40k now. What would the bank account be worth? £12k if you were lucky. No doubt some people are spendthrift and some others do not plan or budget for unforeseen events, but you and others seem to suggest that all those now experiencing financial difficulty fall into this bracket. I disagree. This comment could equally be directed at the government. Perhaps this is the reason why the local election results were so bad for the Tories? (Mods: Back on topic????) (See my second comment above)

Please refrain from introducing logic into the argument.

The reasons are explained if you read the complete (BBC) article.

And no doubt there were people in 2010, 2011 .... 2018 who were arguing the exact same thing when, in fact, interest (mortgage) rates either decreased or remained at the same level. What does "living within one's means" mean? Would you have considered an individual who budgeted for a 50% rise in mortgage rates and 5% inflation for other goods and services in 2019 reckless (and living outside their means)? I wouldn't have but, unfortunately, individuals who made similar provisions 18 months ago may well now be facing financial difficulty.

Don't waste your time trying to understand the incomprehensible (Note to self: Take your own advice)

I agree that allowing some contingency for rate rises is prudent but why 3% and not 2% or 4%? It is an arbitrary figure. Given that the trend in mortgage rates has been downwards since 1990 there was little indication that rates would rise so high, so quickly. As I said previously, no one foresaw that mortgage rates would rise by 75%+ within 18 months. Tying up 3% of one's capital in contingency (+/-£4kpa on a £250k mortgage@6%) has an opportunity cost; that money could be invested elsewhere.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/mortgage-rate Even taking your figure of 6.3% that amounts to a +/-75% rise. My point about it being unreasonable to criticise people for not planning for increases of that magnitude remains valid.

Agreed a rise in interest rates from the previous very low levels are not necessarily a bad thing but the scale of speed of the rises has been the problem. Average mortgage interest rates in November 21 were 3.59%. They are now 7.41% with another increase likely this week. It seems inappropriate to criticise people as lacking common sense for not planning a rise of over 100% in their mortgage rates over a period of 18 months.

Unfortunately judging by some of the comments on this site some people disagree with you (and me).

New King? I think that you are missing the point! If those grievances had substance there would be a mechanism to remove the incumbent, unlike the current situation.

I won't but many others braver than me would. With any luck Thailand might get a more progressive government shortly. Although that will, of course, depend whether the anti-democratic monarchists permit them to take office.

How do you know what he mentioned when interviewed by the BBC? The story is about his wrongful arrest. No doubt the BBC edited the full conversation. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people, who have followed this story, know what cause Mr. Smith is promoting.

That really is a matter of opinion. Republic's reasoning looks broadly rational to me. https://www.republic.org.uk/an_elected_head_of_state While UKIP's policies and rationale might have been clear, I'll state the blindingly obvious and say that their premise that we would be better off out of the EU has yet to be proven. (That is being extremely generous. There is almost no evidence to suggest that premise will be proven correct).

Probably a few more after Saturday's great publicity. Might even join myself! UKIP's peak membership was only 36k, so hope springs, etc

There aren't and I didn't suggest that there were. What I said was that the law on protesting have been tightened. Public protest is one way of expressing oneself freely and these new laws curb that ability. Why is that a problem? If the disturbance is serious enough then the police can act They were protesting and they were breaking existing laws. The former committed criminal damage and the latter were obstructing the highway. The existing laws allowed the police to arrest them which is what happened. For the obvious reason that it would get greater coverage. 80,000 members is a sizeable number for a pressure group. If the same number of protesters turned up in Trafalgar Square today as were present on Saturday, do you really think that there would be the same news coverage? Imo it might get a mention in the footnotes of the local London news bulletins.

Of course the protesters were attention seekers. It would be a waste of time protesting if no one understood what you were protesting about! What Police action(s) do you support? The wrongful application of the law?

Thanks for proving my point. Despite your attempt to trivialise matters there are serious issues here. As this incident highlights, the new laws give the police greater power to curb the ability of individuals to protest. I don't imagine you see a problem with that but those who value free speech do.