Best Of

...

She's running...

@acyn.bsky.social‬

AOC: We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was. A man who believed that the civil rights act that granted black Americans the right to vote was a mistake… His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans.

https://bsky.app/profile/acyn.bsky.social/post/3lz7bfj4map2q

Mm. I'm not saying she's wrong, but a right wing politician in 2020 who started a speech "Let's be clear who George Floyd was" might have found their career shortened somewhat. I'm not sure AOC is taking a route which might reassure the sort of voters whom the Dems have lost over the last decade.

Interestingly, Charlie Kirk himself called George Floyd a 'scumbag'.

Didn't know that but I'd have guessed it.

Kirk's exact words were: "I am also going to offer some context and some nuance about the death of George Floyd that no one dares to say out loud. Which is that this guy was a scumbag. Now, does that mean he deserves to die? That's two totally different things — of course not." This was on Oct. 6, 2021. So over a year afterwards.

That doesn't seem unreasonable and well after the fact.

I believe a more legitimate criticism is he has brought up things in relation to the case that have been later found to be untrue e.g. one claim that went viral was the pregnant woman story, Floyd definitely threatened to kill a woman and held a gun to her stomach. It appears unproven if actually pregnant.

Given the 26 billion hours of Kirk debate footage it isn't surprising that you can find something you don't like. I only had a cursory knowledge of the guy, having watched some of the footage, I find it hard to agree with lots of his very "strict" takes on things.

The only clip of him I've seen was some hackneyed trad-macho nonsense about "only beta guys split the bill on a date." He seemed like a bit of a dick tbh. But I guess that's no barrier to maga stardom.

Edit so as not to get cancelled - his murder was a terrible crime and a tragedy, no ifs or buts.

I detest splitting the bill on any occasion. I just find it unspeakably crass. I have paid for dinner for six (including me) more than once to avoid it. Obviously if it's more than that my scruples have to bow to my bank balance.

I like both paying in full and not paying at all. Worst, from an aesthetic and faff perspective, is divvying up. It's the worst sort of sterile centrism. But it's not 'beta'. That sort of alpha v beta trad-macho talk is one of the worst features of the online maga right. They think it's edgy and cool and a little bit transgressive, but it's a pile of old wank.

Agreed.

The funny thing is that I occupy both ends of that argument - there are people who I see who will always pay (although granted 3 of them are billionaires) and others where I always pay.

The rest of the time it's usually turn and turn about - especially for people who you see fairly frequently.

I don't mind someone else paying the whole bill. I don't even mind the other party doing the tip if I'm buying. I just *hate* the whole dividing up thing, especially 'who had this thing' conversations. Cringe. How can people ruin a good time like that?

I think it's an age (and lack of money thing). When poor I was watching every penny so I would be splitting things up and arguing - now i'm going to quickly grab and pay the bill to avoid the conversation.

That then shifts the relationship into either the bill being paid in whole turn by turn or depending me continuing to pay (based on their finances and how much I like them)

Sir Keir Starmer is giving Hamas a “reward for terrorism” by recognising a Palestinian state, Kemi Badenoch has said.

The Conservative leader said Sir Keir was “incapable of leading Britain on the world stage” and accused him of “economic self-sabotage” in the face of global threats by implementing net zero.

In an essay for The Telegraph on her foreign policy plans, Mrs Badenoch condemned the Government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state in an attempt to put pressure on Israel for a ceasefire in Gaza.

She said the Conservatives would “never apologise for standing by Israel when it strikes back against terrorism” and accused Sir Keir of being “nice” to hostile foreign powers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/19/badenoch-starmer-palestinian-state-rewards-terrorism/

That would have been a fair point if it was done 18 months ago.

It's been nearly 2 years since the horrendous Hamas attacks and Israel continues to collectively punish the people of Gaza. It's right that there are consequences for this. If anything, I'd argue recognising Palestine is too symbolic and more concrete measures should be taken against the current Israeli government.

Hamas are still holding hostages. What measures are being taken to make them release them? Instead the government is rewarding them.

She's running...

@acyn.bsky.social‬

AOC: We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was. A man who believed that the civil rights act that granted black Americans the right to vote was a mistake… His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant, uneducated, and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans.

https://bsky.app/profile/acyn.bsky.social/post/3lz7bfj4map2q

Mm. I'm not saying she's wrong, but a right wing politician in 2020 who started a speech "Let's be clear who George Floyd was" might have found their career shortened somewhat. I'm not sure AOC is taking a route which might reassure the sort of voters whom the Dems have lost over the last decade.

Interestingly, Charlie Kirk himself called George Floyd a 'scumbag'.

Didn't know that but I'd have guessed it.

Kirk's exact words were: "I am also going to offer some context and some nuance about the death of George Floyd that no one dares to say out loud. Which is that this guy was a scumbag. Now, does that mean he deserves to die? That's two totally different things — of course not." This was on Oct. 6, 2021. So over a year afterwards.

That doesn't seem unreasonable and well after the fact.

I believe a more legitimate criticism is he has brought up things in relation to the case that have been later found to be untrue e.g. one claim that went viral was the pregnant woman story, Floyd definitely threatened to kill a woman and held a gun to her stomach. It appears unproven if actually pregnant.

Given the 26 billion hours of Kirk debate footage it isn't surprising that you can find something you don't like. I only had a cursory knowledge of the guy, having watched some of the footage, I find it hard to agree with lots of his very "strict" takes on things.

The only clip of him I've seen was some hackneyed trad-macho nonsense about "only beta guys split the bill on a date." He seemed like a bit of a dick tbh. But I guess that's no barrier to maga stardom.

Edit so as not to get cancelled - his murder was a terrible crime and a tragedy, no ifs or buts.

I detest splitting the bill on any occasion. I just find it unspeakably crass. I have paid for dinner for six (including me) more than once to avoid it. Obviously if it's more than that my scruples have to bow to my bank balance.

I'm shocked:

https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/August-PSF-commentary.pdf

Local authority revisions and lower-than-expected receipts push borrowing above forecast

This morning’s ONS release estimates that borrowing in the first five months of 2025-26 totalled £83.8 billion. This is £16.2 billion above the same period last year and £11.4 billion above the monthly profile consistent with our March forecast. The overshoot in this month’s estimates compared to our March forecast profile is primarily due to revisions which have increased estimated borrowing by local authorities so far this year. In addition, VAT and other receipts were lower-than-expected in the month of August.

Tax rises are eating into economic activity at a higher than expected rate. No fucking shit. Sometimes I wonder whether the people writing the models ever actually go outside and talk to people, experience real life a bit. I assume not.

The OBR is not fit for purpose. As if they would ever forecast in good faith the reality of Labour's shit show.

The OBR's projections for debt are absolutely catastrophic, and have been for some time (since about 2017 when they reflected how slow growth had been in the 2010s). Ultimately Labour's taxes and spending plans are immaterial compared with the overall picture - we're still miles off French/Scandi levels of tax for example.

What's curious is that, given just how bad this is and for how long we have known it, why our borrowing costs are so low (relatively). If Max and the OBR are right, it should be nigh on impossible for the government to borrow over the long term.

Defined benefit pension schemes needed a place to park their money for a long time which helped keep 30 year yields down. That upwards pressure on gilt prices has unwound substantially which is what has caused yields to rise here much faster than elsewhere. The holders of the UK's long term debt now has a much higher risk profile because it's bond investment funds and hedge funds rather than pension funds. The money is much more flighty than it used to be which is why I keep saying the same thing - this country is one adverse fiscal event away from a sovereign debt crisis.

I don't relish the thought, we just have to hope there is enough competency in the government to keep the plates spinning for long enough that we get a new one that will come in and cut spending like the Tories did in 2010.

The markets just don't believe it's that bad, for whatever reason. I think there is an assumption that fiscal drag will continue, that health spending growth will slow, that the State Pension will be unlocked. All this stuff takes decades to have an impact though, so I think there is a boiling frog thing going - "don't worry, I'm sure the Treasury will deal with it next year".

It's also relative, no? Most other Western countries have a similar fiscal outlook to the UK, so as long as we're part of that pack well continue to attract investors as a relatively safe haven.

Yes, the only thing keeping the markets away from a serious run on bond rates, is that most large developed economics are in similar positions.

Everyone is now Japan circa 1999.

At some point though the markets will realise it's a Ponzi scheme everywhere. The UK could try to get ahead of things by fixing things now, especially as our demographic pressures, compared to some peers, are not actually that bad.

Yes, but do Labour have the cojones to cut public sector pensions and the state pension?

I am not sure anyone does. Health and social care costs are the bigger problem, too.

"James Tidmarsh

The tyranny of tipping
Why should I be expected to pay extra?"

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tyranny-of-tipping/

The only thing worse than tipping is people complaining about tipping.

I am going to complain about the people who complain about tipping. I tip if I have enough money (I don't always). Be good to the staff because one day that will be you.