Best Of

How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it

I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.

They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!

Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.

Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...

His recent appearance on Triggernometry podcast is worth watching.

Comedians are generally very good at picking up societal changes well before anyone else, because they go to every town in the country and know what makes people laugh, and what doesn’t, at any given moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWDCZIvLrS4

They’re letting him into the sandpit next month, in the middle of Ramadan of all times. Two shows sold out, 4,000 tickets.

Given ICE appears to have a memo stating that their view is an executive order trumps, ahem, the 4th amendment, they may well be instructing all their agents they can basically do anything.

After each execution every prominent member of the regime issues a statement saying they stand fully behind the stormtroopers

Suggesting that this year we will be moving from 1933 to 1934...

Looking on the bright side, that's would suggest eine Nacht der langen Messer is on its way. I'm sure we all have our fovourite candidate for the Röhm role.

The story from the fall of Weimar was that extra-state paramilitary power (the existence of which was essentially a fallout from the end of WW1), which could be deployed by leading politicians on illegal and violent tasks but then responsibility denied when it suited - was exceptionally useful in enabling them to take control of the state - not just government, but civil society. Some of the stories of properly elected centre-left politicians being beaten up in or physically dragged out of their offices, homes or council meetings and promised violence for them and their families until they resigned, which most of them then did - are horrifying.

Once the levers and organisations of state and society had been fully captured, the existence of semi-detached paramilitary power became a liabilty rather than asset, and an unwelcome alternative source of power, since the ability then existed (and the obstacles had been removed) to deploy violence under direct state control, and send many centre and left wing politicians off for a spell in Dachau.

Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Hitler was a far left socialist. His party was called the national socialists.

https://x.com/ddiamond/status/2015239226141331949?s=20

What a fresh and original take.

Why are some billionaires seemingly just as credulous and idiotic as random people on the street?

The correlation between wealth and intelligence is weaker than the 'just deserts' theory would have us believe.

Given ICE appears to have a memo stating that their view is an executive order trumps, ahem, the 4th amendment, they may well be instructing all their agents they can basically do anything.

After each execution every prominent member of the regime issues a statement saying they stand fully behind the stormtroopers

Suggesting that this year we will be moving from 1933 to 1934...

Looking on the bright side, that's would suggest eine Nacht der langen Messer is on its way. I'm sure we all have our fovourite candidate for the Röhm role.

The story from the fall of Weimar was that extra-state paramilitary power (the existence of which was essentially a fallout from the end of WW1), which could be deployed by leading politicians on illegal and violent tasks but then responsibility denied when it suited - was exceptionally useful in enabling them to take control of the state - not just government, but civil society. Some of the stories of properly elected centre-left politicians being beaten up in or physically dragged out of their offices, homes or council meetings and promised violence for them and their families until they resigned, which most of them then did - are horrifying.

Once the levers and organisations of state and society had been fully captured, the existence of semi-detached paramilitary power became a liabilty rather than asset, and an unwelcome alternative source of power, since the ability then existed (and the obstacles had been removed) to deploy violence under direct state control, and send many centre and left wing politicians off for a spell in Dachau.

With his demonic political instincts Hitler was smart enough to know that the SA had outlived its usefulness and no longer fitted in with the brave new Reich. Non-demented Trump might have realised shooting white US citizens in plain sight looks really bad, now not so much. Miller, Vance, Noem, Bondi et al have dipped their hands in so much blood that they're fully committed, any pause or retreat might result in legal examination.
The enthusiastic support for the Nazis from big business is the biggest refutation of the idiots' cry 'but they were socialists!'. The tech bros falling into line with Trump is yet another startling parallel.

Elon Musk
@elonmusk
Hitler was a far left socialist. His party was called the national socialists.

https://x.com/ddiamond/status/2015239226141331949?s=20

What's going on in the US doesn't, yet at least, look like a concerted attempt to take on and dismantle the sources of opposition power, as happened in Germany in a remarkably determined way and in an amazingly short space of time (and without even majority power, to begin with).

Insofar as it makes sense, it appears to be some mix of, an attempt to influence the media agenda by pushing immigration and tackling crime to the fore - issues that the Republicans expect to play to their advantage; an attempt to trigger counter-protest in the hope that this will over-react and do more damage to the left than the original injustice does to the right, and playing to their base living in small rural communities far away from the US cities who probably have less understanding of US city life than we do, who will simply see 'their' government "finally getting tough".

I think it is more than that. The open ignoring of court instructions, the memos telling ICE executive orders are more important than the constitution, the intimidation to obtain voting records, it may not be all encompassing, but it does look like trying to overwhelm alternative sources of power.

It isn't entirely clear one way or the other. The mid-terms will be crucial. If they are rigged the USA may then be too far gone to be considered a free and democratic State.

How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it

I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.

They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!

Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.

Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...

I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.

Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".

Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.

As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.

I would happily pay for him to talk seriously. Have no interest in paying to watch his stand up.

How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it

I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.

They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!

Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.

Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...

I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.

Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".

Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.

Poorly worded. I am pro-Carr although I've not watched Fackham Hall.

How about a free Oasis concert if Burnham wins? He's a mate of theirs. That should do it

I thought Noel (or Liam) had gone Tory.

They're not the brightest-particularly Liam- but I don't think they're that stupid!

Noel is very anti Labour these days and shows a bit of conservative with a small c ankle. Big mates with the likes of Jimmy Carr, who is qutie similar. He definitely didn't vote Labour when Jezza was about,. was very vocally against him, and doesn't seem to like Starmer very much.

Jimmy Carr, comedian, lifestyle guru and lately political pundit. To be fair, he does offer some pithy insight, for instance woke is American Marxism, and the focus on equality of status rather than class or money. Cynics might say it is Joe Rogan in one minute rather than two hours but...

I think that's pretty unfair on Carr.

Rogan is poorly read and beliefs are all over the place and often inconsistent, but that allowed him in "peak Rogan" period to ask the sort of questions the vast majority of the public might be asking themselves to interesting people (and some crazies). Now its less of the interesting guests, more of the crazies and much more of the "hot takes".

Carr on the other hand is extremely well read across many different topics and has clearly considered his position on lots of things, and has come to a particular world view that I would say definitely leans right economically, socially liberal and then some interesting takes in the middle.

As I think I have said before, whilst I am not the greatest fan of Carr's comedy, I do think he makes valuable contributions to the debate on modern life and where it has gone wrong (and right). I may not always agree with him - though mostly I do - but I value his ability to provide thoughtful, informed and considered analysis of the modern condition.

Off topic, this from Freedman on the travails of government is interesting:

Quarter of a century ago, Professor Michael Moran came up with the concept of the “regulatory state” to describe the way British government works. He has since passed away but no one has yet produced a better analysis. Nor have many politicians engaged with his ideas, which is a shame because without doing so it’s hard to understand why we are where we are. His argument was that until the 1970s Britain was run like a London club with minimal regulatory oversight. Professions like medicine and finance were self-regulated. Public services had almost no accountability to central government. Private businesses were barely regulated at all. Nor was there any social regulation, like protection of disability rights. Though the state did a lot, Whitehall didn’t.

This form of “club governance” fell apart across a series of crises in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, from the collapse of Barings Bank to the mad cow disease scandal. Margaret Thatcher also wanted to use the power of government to attack what she saw as low quality taxpayer funded services and inadequate oversight of left-wing public sector workforces. The great myth of Thatcherism is that it was all about making the state smaller whereas, while it reduced capacity at local government level, it made Whitehall a lot larger and more powerful.

After 1997 New Labour added more oversight of the private sector and social regulation to enforce their human rights legislation. Collectively this led to the creation of a regulatory state without that ever being the intention. An enormous surveillance apparatus was created in an ad hoc fashion. We now have bodies that regulate the professions; that inspect hospitals, schools and other services; that oversee privatised utilities; and try to protect the vulnerable. Across government there are now almost a hundred regulators, and hundreds more public bodies many of which have a quasi-regulatory responsibility, for instance running school assessment or managing public complaints about the NHS. DEFRA alone works with 34 different agencies and public bodies.

But the creation of this apparatus was not accompanied by any change in the way politicians manage their departments. That has stayed as it was in the club government days, which has created a massive disconnect between expectations of politicians and what they can actually achieve.

That does resonate. Without wanting to return to the wild west there may be too many road blocks and powerful arms length bodies, too many things those ostensibly running things are not trusted to control and whom it is impractical or impossible to ignore. Democratic mandates don't erase legal obstacles automatically, but do there need to be so many?

You even see this at local government level. Councillors are less powerful and even more financially constrained, subject to whim of central government, but some councillors come into the job thinking it's like a US state, that outside clearly defined areas they are somehow sovereign.

This is most obvious in planning where they can get very upset and even abusive to staff at being recommended to approve things against the wishes of residents, as they are outraged they're supposed to follow rules set by government.

Mrs Thatcher also made a big power grab for Number 10 at the expense of Cabinet government, followed by President Blair's sofa government and Brown's all-powerful Treasury. Look at PMQs and Jim Callaghan and his predecessors answered only on broad government policy, referring detailed questions to the relevant departments.

Now the common complaint is that Number 10 is still not powerful enough – see for instance Dominic Cummings' laments. Our political masters watched The West Wing and want to be not President Bartlet but Leo, his omniscient Chief of Staff.

Jeremy Hunt's two books are worth a read as he is more reflective than most politicians who seek mainly to justify themselves. Contrast Hunt discovering that another clinical directive to hospitals added to the dozens already in place, with David Cameron's detailed explanation of why he chose to wear black socks on Monday the 19th and why this was the better choice over dark grey.

What you need to read is "A Government That Worked Better And Cost Less?" by Christopher Hood and Ruth Dixon. There's a review at https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2015/10/14/book-review-a-government-that-worked-better-and-cost-less-evaluating-three-decades-of-reform-and-change-in-uk-central-government-by-christopher-hood-and-ruth-dixon/

When I wrote my PhD on UK urban planning (1997) all the literature was talking about 'de-regulation' under Mrs T. When I looked at the actual data it showed a huge increase in the regulatory burden. Since a minority of academics favour de-regulation few go looking for evidence of regulatory growth. I suspect this replicates across multiple policy areas and it skews public understanding of what is going on.
https://x.com/Kaleidicworld/status/2015058240418300075

Reminds me a bit of of quantum mechanics and the duality of light. Look for it acting as a wave and you'll see that. Look for it acting as a particle and you'll see that. .

The preconceptions of an inquiry can shut out lots of relevant information, or, in extremis, lead to bastardisation of reality in favour of prejudice, (such as pretending Cleopatra VII was black instead of looking at the actually black Kushite dynasty from around 750 to 650 BC).