I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
The situation before vaccines was: ""horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the Covid victim. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of covid victims die."
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
We have a poster on here who gladly praises Franco.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
Selection bias. Heve you considered that your friends are not normal? Most U.K. folk are VERY law abiding and rule obeyers. Hence the fury about others transgressing in lockdown.
If my friends were normal, they wouldn't be my friends.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
I can't help thinking the efficacy of the vaccines against infection was exaggerated in the drive to get people vaccinated. A lot of people got the impression that they should expect to be immune from infection altogether. But even in the original trials the overall efficacy of AstraZeneca against infection (including asymptomatic infection) was only around 50%.
So anecdotes about individual double-jabbed people being infected with Omicron are meaningless. We need proper data, though we already have a study apparently showing more reinfection in South Africa than in previous waves. But it's the sheer growth rate compared with Delta (whatever exactly the reasons behind it) that is likely to cause problems for health services. The initial S-gene dropout data in the UK looks broadly consistent with the growth rate seen in South Africa, and fortunately that aspect will become clearer quite quickly.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Bartlet didn't start a war either.
That’s because of his special carpet in his office
Yes he made sure the eagle was always facing the olive branch.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
Selection bias. Heve you considered that your friends are not normal? Most U.K. folk are VERY law abiding and rule obeyers. Hence the fury about others transgressing in lockdown.
Your fourth sentence does not follow from your third.
People I know, in the West of England, also keep their infection status to themselves and to those they think need to know.
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
The situation before vaccines was: ""horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the Covid victim. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of covid victims die."
Sure. The public perception of risk has always been way off kilter. I recall a survey very early in the pandemic showing that those polled believed that 10% of the population had died from Covid. I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with my original post or not?
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
If you're posting from the US with what's going on there, looking across the Atlantic toward Europe, some things that previously seemed extreme perhaps seem a little less so by comparison?
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
I don’t know her platform. But I would definitely support more active involvement by the state in improving national strategic resilience, if necessary through direct ownership of parts of industry and the supply chain. Perhaps this is not the same thing as she is planning. Is she at least going to take France out the euro if she wins (even if she denies it now)?
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Our current PM is exactly that. A radical implementing real change.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
OK. I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course. Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together. No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC. A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
The thing that a lot of people miss is that Brexit is a lot more radical than even its proponents assume. It's not a return a pre-EEC state. It's a completely untried mode of being for the UK. It's been done with very little run up or planning, and there are a lot of questions that won't be answered until the reality is bedded in.
If that's not radical, I don't know what it.
The thing is people speak about Brexit as an end state. It's nothing of the sort.
It is both radical and boringly normal. It is simply the UK being an independent, sovereign country just as almost every other country on the planet is.
Brexit isn't a state any more than atheism is a religion. Brexit is just not being in the EU, what we do instead is up to us to decide.
It might have helped to have had a plan as to what to do post-Brexit beforehand.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
The situation before vaccines was: ""horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the Covid victim. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of covid victims die."
Sure. The public perception of risk has always been way off kilter. I recall a survey very early in the pandemic showing that those polled believed that 10% of the population had died from Covid. I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with my original post or not?
But that is a gross and obvious error, and if you are happy to deal in unquantified concepts like "tiny minority" you must accept that vaccines are beginning to look as if they are in marzipan dildo utility country.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Our current PM is exactly that. A radical implementing real change.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
OK. I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course. Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together. No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC. A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
The thing that a lot of people miss is that Brexit is a lot more radical than even its proponents assume. It's not a return a pre-EEC state. It's a completely untried mode of being for the UK. It's been done with very little run up or planning, and there are a lot of questions that won't be answered until the reality is bedded in.
If that's not radical, I don't know what it.
The thing is people speak about Brexit as an end state. It's nothing of the sort.
It is both radical and boringly normal. It is simply the UK being an independent, sovereign country just as almost every other country on the planet is.
Brexit isn't a state any more than atheism is a religion. Brexit is just not being in the EU, what we do instead is up to us to decide.
This idea that leaving the EU leaves us free to decide things...its an attractive notion but:
OECD rules tie the UK's hands on how it delivers foreign aid WTO rules drive how we conduct trade rules NATO dictates how we must defend other countries (esp EU ones) and how much we should spend UN Resolutions commit the UK to uphold/take action ECHR drive the UKs human rights policy.... The US controls our `independent' nuclear deterrence technology
The list goes on and on....
The idea that we have suddenly removed all shackles that stopped us from trading like Germany or having a social security system like Sweden (both of which are EU) is simply wrong...... the UK is almost as tied to various (this time more secretive) commitments as it was before... and so far to virtually no benefit.
This is a false equivalence fallacy that Remainers love to use.
OECD, WTO, NATO etc rules commit us to some basic rules we have agreed in advance. We signed up to those commitments and they remain only as we committed them to. None of those organisations significantly changes the rules without our agreement.
The EU was a law-setting body. It had legislative power to change the laws without our agreement. Post-Euro and post-Lisbon Treaty the extension of QMV meant if Eurozone nations wanted a law change they could get it without any agreement or input from non-Euro nations. Protection for the non-Euro nations was one of the most important reforms David Cameron set out to achieve and he failed to get any legally binding protections.
That was one of the key ways that Cameron's negotiation were a failure and that tipped me from Remain to Leave.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
We have a poster on here who gladly praises Franco.
We have multiple, very loud, defenders of liberty, freedom and democracy on here who are perfectly relaxed to see them all attacked by the government they support.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
The situation before vaccines was: ""horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the Covid victim. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of covid victims die."
Sure. The public perception of risk has always been way off kilter. I recall a survey very early in the pandemic showing that those polled believed that 10% of the population had died from Covid. I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with my original post or not?
But that is a gross and obvious error, and if you are happy to deal in unquantified concepts like "tiny minority" you must accept that vaccines are beginning to look as if they are in marzipan dildo utility country.
I have faith in the vaccines. Though I notice that politicians' faith is waning. For example, Portugal, then France now USA are insisting on negative tests for travellers whether or not the person is vaccinated. The notion that vaccines (at least these ones) is the silver bullet has been unremittingly chipped away at.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
In 1983 the USA under Reagan, actually invaded a sovereign Commonwealth country (Grenada).
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
It has certainly gone beyond normal political debate. Parts of the right have gone nuts.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
I don’t know her platform. But I would definitely support more active involvement by the state in improving national strategic resilience, if necessary through direct ownership of parts of industry and the supply chain. Perhaps this is not the same thing as she is planning. Is she at least going to take France out the euro if she wins (even if she denies it now)?
She has given speeches about how the EU should be a club of Christian countries standing up against the Islamic East.
She had never really believed that France should leave the Euro. Her only concern is if Euro membership would prevent her from following a corbyn-esque interventionist economic policy.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
Selection bias. Heve you considered that your friends are not normal? Most U.K. folk are VERY law abiding and rule obeyers.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Our current PM is exactly that. A radical implementing real change.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
It is obvious that this would be the way it would happen, despite the very good reasons why it shouldn't. The politicians look to the opinion polls, the focus groups and precedent. Raising National Insurance and cutting Income Tax is a winning combination. Has been for decades.
I have no idea how to fix this.
If it doesn't get fixed eventually people are going to go for someone like Corbyn.
Break the system and start again.
That sounds like a great outcome, provided we can find someone who is like Corbyn, except for the antisemitism, the stale dogmatism, the lack of interest in persuasion and the absence of leadership abilities. And probably a bunch of other negative traits.
At what stage do you conclude that there's more wrong than right, and that things are getting worse rather than better, so you might as well shake things up rather than hope that the country changes direction spontaneously?
Corbyn was a 70's Socialist. Not at all suitable for the 2020's. In addition to the drawbacks you list. There will come a time when a radical implementing real change does emerge again. But it will be a radicalism of the future, not of the past, or of the present.
Yes. It was the most disappointing aspect of his leadership (apart from the antisemitism, the factional infighting and ...) that he appeared to have zero interest in thinking of new answers, seeing anything new as being a repudiation of dearly-held principles.
But it meant that his socialism was a dead thing, a triumph of form over content, rote-learned slogans.
Corbyn's leadership was initially the most exciting development in British politics in my lifetime, but ended up as the biggest waste of an opportunity. I suppose he did play a part in humiliating Theresa May, so at least there's that.
Am very much a believer in the long run cyclical nature of UK politics. Seems to go off a 35-40 year spell. Where the ancien regime seems fixed and immutably settled, then suddenly the dam breaks. Reforms of Disraeli/Gladstone 1860's early 70's. Liberal government 1905 onwards. Attlee. Thatcher. Each sets the parameters of debate for a couple of generations. Governments of all stripes manage within them. And then suddenly, they are swept away. To the general surprise and shock of commentators. Who invariably didn't see it coming, because they were schooled in the old ways.
That may be true, but instead of a Labour leader setting the parameters of debate for a couple of generations, it looks like Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have done so. It could be another 35 years until there's a chance to change direction again.
OK. I reckon Brexit is the last desperate knockings of a Thatcherite consensus which has run its course. Rather than anything radical it's a futile attempt to put the band back together. No one has answered the inherent contradictions of the GFC. A new generation will. And it won't be Socialism or Singapore on Thames.
The thing that a lot of people miss is that Brexit is a lot more radical than even its proponents assume. It's not a return a pre-EEC state. It's a completely untried mode of being for the UK. It's been done with very little run up or planning, and there are a lot of questions that won't be answered until the reality is bedded in.
If that's not radical, I don't know what it.
The thing is people speak about Brexit as an end state. It's nothing of the sort.
It is both radical and boringly normal. It is simply the UK being an independent, sovereign country just as almost every other country on the planet is.
Brexit isn't a state any more than atheism is a religion. Brexit is just not being in the EU, what we do instead is up to us to decide.
This idea that leaving the EU leaves us free to decide things...its an attractive notion but:
OECD rules tie the UK's hands on how it delivers foreign aid WTO rules drive how we conduct trade rules NATO dictates how we must defend other countries (esp EU ones) and how much we should spend UN Resolutions commit the UK to uphold/take action ECHR drive the UKs human rights policy.... The US controls our `independent' nuclear deterrence technology
The list goes on and on....
The idea that we have suddenly removed all shackles that stopped us from trading like Germany or having a social security system like Sweden (both of which are EU) is simply wrong...... the UK is almost as tied to various (this time more secretive) commitments as it was before... and so far to virtually no benefit.
This is a false equivalence fallacy that Remainers love to use.
OECD, WTO, NATO etc rules commit us to some basic rules we have agreed in advance. We signed up to those commitments and they remain only as we committed them to. None of those organisations significantly changes the rules without our agreement.
The EU was a law-setting body. It had legislative power to change the laws without our agreement. Post-Euro and post-Lisbon Treaty the extension of QMV meant if Eurozone nations wanted a law change they could get it without any agreement or input from non-Euro nations. Protection for the non-Euro nations was one of the most important reforms David Cameron set out to achieve and he failed to get any legally binding protections.
That was one of the key ways that Cameron's negotiation were a failure and that tipped me from Remain to Leave.
The freedom of a UK government elected by a minority of voters to act in a way that is constrained by the realities of international trade and politics has been achieved at the expense of the individual freedoms of UK citizens and businesses. But, as you say, we are where we are.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
It couldn't happen here, people say, as it happens here!
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
I don’t know her platform. But I would definitely support more active involvement by the state in improving national strategic resilience, if necessary through direct ownership of parts of industry and the supply chain. Perhaps this is not the same thing as she is planning. Is she at least going to take France out the euro if she wins (even if she denies it now)?
She has given speeches about how the EU should be a club of Christian countries standing up against the Islamic East.
She had never really believed that France should leave the Euro. Her only concern is if Euro membership would prevent her from following a corbyn-esque interventionist economic policy.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
'Went' to a Zoom recently where the speaker argued that the use of iron in war equipment at the Battle of Kadesh around BC1274 signalled the end of bronze in military weapons and their replacement by iron. Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Bartlet didn't start a war either.
But he did bomb terrorists in Qumar.
Dropping bombs is what Obama did that Trumpites insist was 'war', and which Donald did but apparently isn't war for *reasons*
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
I'm surprised you missed the obvious analogy to your specialist subject.
Poor wee lemming Scotland being held by the Evil English Empire just too high for her to jump off safely.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
It has certainly gone beyond normal political debate. Parts of the right have gone nuts.
I am not sure that the right has gone nuts. I think it's more it believes it can now get away with doing stuff it has always wanted to do.
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
I'm surprised you missed the obvious analogy to your specialist subject.
Poor wee lemming Scotland being held by the Evil English Empire just too high for her to jump off safely.
I thought jumping off unsafely was what lemmings did best?
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
I'm surprised you missed the obvious analogy to your specialist subject.
Poor wee lemming Scotland being held by the Evil English Empire just too high for her to jump off safely.
I thought jumping off unsafely was what lemmings did best?
I think that should be the basis for an SNP slogan.
Thread on possible importation of new variant into London (Leon and other Londoners of a nervous disposition, look away):
After looking like it was nearing a peak a few days ago, London has begun climbing England's regional rankings again. It passed the West Midlands a couple of days ago and we have a north/south divide developing, but with the south on top. I have a very bad feeling about this. 6/6
Telegraph: MPs told The Telegraph that “the vibes coming back” from the [North Shropshire] seat are “not good,” ahead of a vote there on December 16.
A senior Conservative source said some members of Boris Johnson’s Cabinet were “not pulling their weight” on the doorstep in the constituency, while others worried that a Bexley campaign team run by the Tory deputy party chairman, Justin Tomlinson, was switching its focus to North Shropshire too late.
Jitters about the vote to replace Mr Paterson, who held a majority of almost 23,000 votes, come after the Conservatives’ majority was reduced from 19,000 to less than 5,000 in Old Bexley and Sidcup on Thursday.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
It has certainly gone beyond normal political debate. Parts of the right have gone nuts.
I am not sure that the right has gone nuts. I think it's more it believes it can now get away with doing stuff it has always wanted to do.
And partly because it knows the left hasn't found a way to bring people together, at all. It's open season for a party constantly holding up culture war issues as a way to protect elite financial interests, like hedge funds. That is a large part of the character of, and those are some of the key donors to, the modern Conservative party.
OECD, WTO, NATO etc rules commit us to some basic rules we have agreed in advance. We signed up to those commitments and they remain only as we committed them to. None of those organisations significantly changes the rules without our agreement.
While the UK is in NATO its strategic imperatives are always subservient to those of the US. That's fine while they mostly align but they increasingly don't. NATO has a tattered shroud of democracy via the council but the reality is nothing happens unless the US wants it to.
Thread on possible importation of new variant into London (Leon and other Londoners of a nervous disposition, look away):
After looking like it was nearing a peak a few days ago, London has begun climbing England's regional rankings again. It passed the West Midlands a couple of days ago and we have a north/south divide developing, but with the south on top. I have a very bad feeling about this. 6/6
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Bartlet didn't start a war either.
But he did bomb terrorists in Qumar.
Dropping bombs is what Obama did that Trumpites insist was 'war', and which Donald did but apparently isn't war for *reasons*
This is a bit silly. Obama explicitly enacted regime change against Gaddafi using a combination of special forces, air strikes and logistical support for proxy armies. Not saying that it was right or wrong. But it’s very different to dropping a daisy cutter on a stateless jihadi
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
I'm surprised you missed the obvious analogy to your specialist subject.
Poor wee lemming Scotland being held by the Evil English Empire just too high for her to jump off safely.
I thought jumping off unsafely was what lemmings did best?
I think that should be the basis for an SNP slogan.
I think it works both ways. "Join us on a doom jump!" "Stay and let us use your bones as toothpicks!"
If the electoral commission is bribed enough, they can make Doom / Crushed the answers on the next ref.
I don't get the omigod Omicron affects the double jabbed thing.
I and plenty of my friends have had Covid since being double jabbed. Like the flu for a couple of days in my case and a bit longer for others.
This is of course no comment on the potency or otherwise or the transmissibility of Omicron just that it's strange to see such shock headlines.
Yes every adult I know who has caught Covid recently has been double jabbed. It's mostly not been life threatening (although I know of someone, early 40s, double jabbed, no underlying conditions, who died) but without fail it's been horrible and debilitating and most have been surprised at how long it's taken to fully recover. I am still far from 100% three weeks after catching it.
Yes, same here, for sure "horrible and debilitating for a few weeks" is the typical experience of the vaccinated. Either that or no symptoms at all. A tiny minority of the vaccinated die. We always knew that no vaccine will be 100% effective.
Yet ALL positives are included in the 4pm gloom-fest new infection figures - despite infections not being remotely equal in significance.
We need to know how close our medical system is to collapse. Publishing new infection figures is, post-vaccine, way too divorced from this aim and just serves to generate panic, eagerly stoked by the media.
I'm not sure anything like *all* infections are included in the numbers. Most of my friends who got Covid (and posted their LFT test results to FB) have never taken a PCR or submitted their infection status anywhere official.
Selection bias. Heve you considered that your friends are not normal? Most U.K. folk are VERY law abiding and rule obeyers. Hence the fury about others transgressing in lockdown.
Your fourth sentence does not follow from your third.
People I know, in the West of England, also keep their infection status to themselves and to those they think need to know.
Huh? Most people who follow the rules get really annoyed by those who don’t. I don’t see what’s controversial about that?
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
It has certainly gone beyond normal political debate. Parts of the right have gone nuts.
I am not sure that the right has gone nuts. I think it's more it believes it can now get away with doing stuff it has always wanted to do.
And partly because it knows the left hasn't found a way to bring people together, at all. It's open season for a party constantly holding up culture war issues as a way to protect elite financial interests, like hedge funds. These are some of the key donors to the modern Conservative party.
If the Tory party were a chocolate it would have a thin shell that tasted of anger and statues of racists, with a soft sweet centre made up of untraceable Russian money, PPE contracts and private equity.
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
I'm surprised you missed the obvious analogy to your specialist subject.
Poor wee lemming Scotland being held by the Evil English Empire just too high for her to jump off safely.
I thought jumping off unsafely was what lemmings did best?
I think that should be the basis for an SNP slogan.
I think it works both ways. "Join us on a doom jump!" "Stay and let us use your bones as toothpicks!"
If the electoral commission is bribed enough, they can make Doom / Crushed the answers on the next ref.
I don't our Electoral Commission can be bribed. The members can be replaced, so as to give results which suit the Government, though.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
There is a practical point understood by Conservatives that absolutely passes the Labour left by. If we win, the Conservatives understand (at any cost, and with compromise) we can make a difference, either positively to our constituency or negatively by lining our own pockets.
The Labour left chose ideological purity over power (hence BJO posting anti Starmer propaganda up thread). Conservatives choose pragmatism, and so long as Johnson is winning, the lies, the immorality the corruption are fine. However they will laugh at him and worse when he becomes a liability.
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
I'm surprised you missed the obvious analogy to your specialist subject.
Poor wee lemming Scotland being held by the Evil English Empire just too high for her to jump off safely.
I thought jumping off unsafely was what lemmings did best?
I think that should be the basis for an SNP slogan.
I think it works both ways. "Join us on a doom jump!" "Stay and let us use your bones as toothpicks!"
If the electoral commission is bribed enough, they can make Doom / Crushed the answers on the next ref.
I don't our Electoral Commission can be bribed. The members can be replaced, so as to give results which suit the Government, though.
What was I even thinking? Of course you're right. No point in spending money unnecessarily.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
I don’t know her platform. But I would definitely support more active involvement by the state in improving national strategic resilience, if necessary through direct ownership of parts of industry and the supply chain. Perhaps this is not the same thing as she is planning. Is she at least going to take France out the euro if she wins (even if she denies it now)?
She has given speeches about how the EU should be a club of Christian countries standing up against the Islamic East.
She had never really believed that France should leave the Euro. Her only concern is if Euro membership would prevent her from following a corbyn-esque interventionist economic policy.
I dunno. Sounds pretty racist to me.
Many in France have never forgiven the mulslims in Algeria for kicking them out. I think Le Pen and Zemmour are both playing to that constituency. One of the few good reasons for leaving the EU is that the French are gradually going nuts.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
It has certainly gone beyond normal political debate. Parts of the right have gone nuts.
I am not sure that the right has gone nuts. I think it's more it believes it can now get away with doing stuff it has always wanted to do.
And partly because it knows the left hasn't found a way to bring people together, at all. It's open season for a party constantly holding up culture war issues as a way to protect elite financial interests, like hedge funds. These are some of the key donors to the modern Conservative party.
If the Tory party were a chocolate it would have a thin shell that tasted of anger and statues of racists, with a soft sweet centre made up of untraceable Russian money, PPE contracts and private equity.
Thread on possible importation of new variant into London (Leon and other Londoners of a nervous disposition, look away):
After looking like it was nearing a peak a few days ago, London has begun climbing England's regional rankings again. It passed the West Midlands a couple of days ago and we have a north/south divide developing, but with the south on top. I have a very bad feeling about this. 6/6
Thing One's school is running a four day week next week (each day, a different year group at home online) because they have too many staff off sick. And keeping windows open is getting increasingly difficult.
Especially if you don't want a lockdown, it's hard to avoid a bad feeling about all of this.
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
There is a practical point understood by Conservatives that absolutely passes the Labour left by. If we win, the Conservatives understand (at any cost, and with compromise) we can make a difference, either positively to our constituency or negatively by lining our own pockets.
The Labour left chose ideological purity over power (hence BJO posting anti Starmer propaganda up thread). Conservatives choose pragmatism, and so long as Johnson is winning, the lies, the immorality the corruption are fine. However they will laugh at him and worse when he becomes a liability.
I don't think it passes them by. I think there is a measure of self-awareness on that socialist front, but it's a step up from awareness to action, and the addiction to purity keeps them from making enough pragmatic decisions. The converse is true of Conservatives. They mostly know that something is wrong, but their addiction to pragmatism robs them of their ideals.
The tragedy of the left is they're too fussy. The tragedy of the right is they aren't fussy enough.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
I don’t know her platform. But I would definitely support more active involvement by the state in improving national strategic resilience, if necessary through direct ownership of parts of industry and the supply chain. Perhaps this is not the same thing as she is planning. Is she at least going to take France out the euro if she wins (even if she denies it now)?
She has given speeches about how the EU should be a club of Christian countries standing up against the Islamic East.
She had never really believed that France should leave the Euro. Her only concern is if Euro membership would prevent her from following a corbyn-esque interventionist economic policy.
I dunno. Sounds pretty racist to me.
Many in France have never forgiven the mulslims in Algeria for kicking them out. I think Le Pen and Zemmour are both playing to that constituency. One of the few good reasons for leaving the EU is that the French are gradually going nuts.
The French spent most of the period from 1788 to 1916 going nuts.
Having served in the British Army and NHS, I take public service very seriously. Here are my 10 commitments that I'm making to you about how I will work for you.
I did tip a 18-1 hurdle winner last week (sort of, as we now know other outcomes than winning and losing) but Malky is the PB-er Stud Club ‘Super Stud’ at the moment 😍contesting our suggestions with his own - and they all go and win!
sensible weather this Saturday, breezy with scattered showers here in south, more showers up North.
There are some big chases at Sandown and Aintree, and a Welsh National dress rehearsal at Chepstow. And I havn’t a clue who is going to win any of those races, though I can’t wait to watch them.
After fun with my not so sleepy long shot last week, I’m going to make case for another long shot.
1:02 Wetherby - Flexi Furlough (long shot)
She has only won once and it was a bumper. Has never raced this extra for 3m distance before. Has been in a competitive finish at 2m 5f. In fact nearly always competitive and ground suits her.
I played back my 18-1 winner in slow mo on my pad, and I think they were generous to dead heat as it kept looking to me other horse won.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
Bartlet didn't start a war either.
But he did bomb terrorists in Qumar.
Dropping bombs is what Obama did that Trumpites insist was 'war', and which Donald did but apparently isn't war for *reasons*
Yes and there was an extra-judicial killing, albeit he agonised over it.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
It has certainly gone beyond normal political debate. Parts of the right have gone nuts.
I am not sure that the right has gone nuts. I think it's more it believes it can now get away with doing stuff it has always wanted to do.
And partly because it knows the left hasn't found a way to bring people together, at all. It's open season for a party constantly holding up culture war issues as a way to protect elite financial interests, like hedge funds. These are some of the key donors to the modern Conservative party.
If the Tory party were a chocolate it would have a thin shell that tasted of anger and statues of racists, with a soft sweet centre made up of untraceable Russian money, PPE contracts and private equity.
They do say you should "understand your enemy"......
Boris Johnson has made a surprise visit to North Shropshire in an apparent sign of Tory jitters about a Lib Dem challenge in what is usually a staunchly Conservative seat in a byelection on 16 December.
Johnson, who was wearing a mask, chatted to customers and watched as the Tory candidate in North Shropshire, Neil Shastri-Hurst, a doctor turned barrister, gave people booster jabs. However, the prime minister got the candidate’s name wrong.
Tory strategists are believed to be worried about a possible shock in North Shropshire, where the byelection was called after the resignation of Owen Paterson, who was found to have repeatedly breached rules about lobbying.
A Conservative email sent to supporters after the Bexley result urged donations to be ploughed into North Shropshire, warning that the Liberal Democrats had a real chance of victory.
Surely if he’s turned up there personally it’s because they think it’s in the bag and he wants some of the victory halo to shine on him.
He did turn up to Brecon and Radnor, but then he found a convenient place to hide from the media and the local population (not a fridge, in case you were wondering).
I would agree however that if he really thought there was a chance of losing he would be distancing himself from it.
Its probably more about a `morale raising' visit for the unsung heroes who GOTV, the door knockers, envelope stuffers etc, the sort of ones who who put many hours in and get little in return (whereas if you were to donate a lot of money to the Tories you could get a peerage etc..) if he's there in the last 48-72 hours then I'd be reading something into it....
It must be weird to be a Tory, to experience the emotion of happiness at the news “Boris is coming to town”, to have him as your leader, representing you and thinking that somehow is a good thing. Hard to get your head around that. I could get feeling mildly curious in a sort of dirty way, but genuinely happy or proud, not really.
It's about being in the presence of a winner.....
In a safe seat that could go decades without getting a visit in a general election.
A winner, but not a good man. Not someone to respect or look up to. At best an old school snake oil salesman rolling into town putting on a show?
He'll only put on a show if people who might ask questions are kept well away.
He is curious, personally I can find something to respect in all previous PM, including the less successful ones or ones I disagree with. Boris Johnson is undoubtedly a talented communicator, but given that he shows virtually no respect to others and sends up the office he holds, it’s impossible to respect him.
I find that disturbing. The office of PM should matter, but on his watch it’s all a bit of a laugh and diminished. Obviously that massively suits a certain constituency, which why he wins elections. What I find befuddling is how Conservatives that take politics seriously reconcile all that.
There is a practical point understood by Conservatives that absolutely passes the Labour left by. If we win, the Conservatives understand (at any cost, and with compromise) we can make a difference, either positively to our constituency or negatively by lining our own pockets.
The Labour left chose ideological purity over power (hence BJO posting anti Starmer propaganda up thread). Conservatives choose pragmatism, and so long as Johnson is winning, the lies, the immorality the corruption are fine. However they will laugh at him and worse when he becomes a liability.
I was idly thinking on those lines earlier, when someone was abusing me for not seeing the world as it was, or at least as he saw it. I've lived through Governments led by five Labour leaders, and while I can only really recall the last days of the Attlee government, it does seem to me that neither he nor the other successful leaders could be described as ideologues. AIUI Attlee had his views, but acted as a chairman, as did Wilson, although he could be devious. Blair can't be described as an ideologue, but he has, or at least had, a concept of a fairer society. If only Blair had trusted his instincts and taken Roy Jenkins advice on electoral reform instead of John Prescott's.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
It has certainly gone beyond normal political debate. Parts of the right have gone nuts.
I am not sure that the right has gone nuts. I think it's more it believes it can now get away with doing stuff it has always wanted to do.
And partly because it knows the left hasn't found a way to bring people together, at all. It's open season for a party constantly holding up culture war issues as a way to protect elite financial interests, like hedge funds. These are some of the key donors to the modern Conservative party.
If the Tory party were a chocolate it would have a thin shell that tasted of anger and statues of racists, with a soft sweet centre made up of untraceable Russian money, PPE contracts and private equity.
Only selected racists. They wouldn't protect any statues of Jeremy Corbyn.
If the Tory party were a chocolate it would have a thin shell that tasted of anger and statues of racists, with a soft sweet centre made up of untraceable Russian money, PPE contracts and private equity.
Only selected racists. They wouldn't protect any statues of Jeremy Corbyn.
I'd love it if they put up a Corbyn statue outside Labour HQ.
If the Tory party were a chocolate it would have a thin shell that tasted of anger and statues of racists, with a soft sweet centre made up of untraceable Russian money, PPE contracts and private equity.
Only selected racists. They wouldn't protect any statues of Jeremy Corbyn.
I'd love it if they put up a Corbyn Statue outside Labour HQ.
So we could have reversed roles while BLM tried to protect it and Johnson tried to have it removed?
Thread on possible importation of new variant into London (Leon and other Londoners of a nervous disposition, look away):
After looking like it was nearing a peak a few days ago, London has begun climbing England's regional rankings again. It passed the West Midlands a couple of days ago and we have a north/south divide developing, but with the south on top. I have a very bad feeling about this. 6/6
Thing One's school is running a four day week next week (each day, a different year group at home online) because they have too many staff off sick. And keeping windows open is getting increasingly difficult.
Especially if you don't want a lockdown, it's hard to avoid a bad feeling about all of this.
I think (hope?) that the key is how sick people get. If there are a ton of cases, but people are not needing hospital care then we may be ok. But that’s a big question right now.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
We have a poster on here who gladly praises Franco.
We have multiple, very loud, defenders of liberty, freedom and democracy on here who are perfectly relaxed to see them all attacked by the government they support.
The new bill on police powers restricting and criminalising peaceful protest should be of much greater concern. Sooner or later Conservatives are going to want to protest.
The fact that nobody to the left of Macron is even mentioned in the header is very telling.
I worry for France that Zemmour has shifted the Overton Window to the point that Le Pen is looking relatively moderate.
France joins a list of European nations whose politics is looking increasingly ugly. Thank goodness we don't share sovereignty with them anymore.
I'm not sure that Le Pen is particularly extreme. She's just Jeremy Corbin economics, combined with Theresa May on immigration.
Just a thought. Marie Le Pen probably would not be where she is today in the political scene were it not for her name. But if she were where she is today and did not have that family name, would she be more electable?
Having served in the British Army and NHS, I take public service very seriously. Here are my 10 commitments that I'm making to you about how I will work for you.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
We have a poster on here who gladly praises Franco.
We have multiple, very loud, defenders of liberty, freedom and democracy on here who are perfectly relaxed to see them all attacked by the government they support.
The new bill on police powers restricting and criminalising peaceful protest should be of much greater concern. Sooner or later Conservatives are going to want to protest.
Some years ago a group of OAP's 'armed' with Zimmer frames and walking sticks arrived at Priti Patel's constituency office wanting to talk to her about something or other. She called the police; they were 'threatening'.
Thread on possible importation of new variant into London (Leon and other Londoners of a nervous disposition, look away):
After looking like it was nearing a peak a few days ago, London has begun climbing England's regional rankings again. It passed the West Midlands a couple of days ago and we have a north/south divide developing, but with the south on top. I have a very bad feeling about this. 6/6
Thing One's school is running a four day week next week (each day, a different year group at home online) because they have too many staff off sick. And keeping windows open is getting increasingly difficult.
Especially if you don't want a lockdown, it's hard to avoid a bad feeling about all of this.
I think (hope?) that the key is how sick people get. If there are a ton of cases, but people are not needing hospital care then we may be ok. But that’s a big question right now.
Looks like vaccination improves the odds massively (x5 or so?) but not absolutely. Tolerating a higher case load is viable, but full-on letting it rip isn't.
She has given speeches about how the EU should be a club of Christian countries standing up against the Islamic East.
She had never really believed that France should leave the Euro. Her only concern is if Euro membership would prevent her from following a corbyn-esque interventionist economic policy.
I dunno. Sounds pretty racist to me.
Many in France have never forgiven the mulslims in Algeria for kicking them out. I think Le Pen and Zemmour are both playing to that constituency. One of the few good reasons for leaving the EU is that the French are gradually going nuts.
We're not helping much, though I appreciate that our impact is marginal:
All beliefs have shadings, and only a small minority entirely insist on the most extreme version possible (Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.). Some tack to the wind surprisingly far, and Marine Le Pen has made a definite effort to appear electable. She still seems to me a racist and religious nutter, just one prepared to make the effort to look relatively sane.
BIzarrely, there' s a pre-British Rail privatisation Christmas joke in the Die Hard fillm. The passengers on a "Windsor Airlines" plane that the baddies are targetting, are told something like "there may be delays on the christmas arrival today, but like British Rail, we're late but we're getting there."
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
'Went' to a Zoom recently where the speaker argued that the use of iron in war equipment at the Battle of Kadesh around BC1274 signalled the end of bronze in military weapons and their replacement by iron. Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
He got that from a Wilbur Smith novel. Smith describes very credibly what happens when you take a bronze sword to an iron sword fight, might as well be made of chocolate. Never tried but I can see how it might be true given how bendy copper is.
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
Unkind, a few mor enice pictures like that would beat a lot of the drivel written.
On the French election; my approach has been to back both Zemmour and Le Pen at 10/1.
So it is 5/1 that one them will a) get through to the final (very likely) and beat Macron (a greater than 20% possibility, in my view).
Edit - it seems to me that there is more value in this approach than laying Macron at the current odds.
I think a Le Pen victory over Macron is a very real possibility (certainly greater than a 20% chance, assuming Le Pen v Macron).
But like Quincel, I don't think much of Zemmour's chances.
Le Pen is an economic nationalist. I quite like her. I don't think she's a racist or a loon. I don't think her prescription (i.e. more state intervention to ensure business was doing the right thing) would do France much good, but she's a sincere woman, doing her bit for the downtrodden in France, and good for her.
Zemmour, though, is just another boring bar room anti-Anglo Saxon French intellectual. He's like if Macron, De Gaulle, Chirac or Sarkozy chose to become detached from reality, and started making shit up, because the glory of France is so great that one can forgive everything in it's name.
What does he offer someone whose job has been lost to globalisation or competition from Eastern Europe?
Nothing.
Let me put it another way: it is very lazy to assume that Le Pen and Zemmour are fishing in the same pool.
Did you see his video? There was a line in there that stood out, he celebrated that French armies had conquered Europe and the world. He’s quite different. He might not win this time, but it’s what follows that bothers me. The fact you can say that you like Le Pen, leading a rebranded National Front, demonstrates how far the world has moved, Who’s to say it is not going to continue to move in that direction and Zemmour will win one day.
I must say I had to twice check the name of the poster who just gave a relatively flattering description of Le Pen. Not because I think he’s wrong, I don’t follow it closely enough to have a view one way or the other. But because certainly five years ago it would have been gross unthink to have voiced it out loud, her winning being unimaginable to the chattering classes. That there Overton window is shifting for sure.
I think you'll find that I've written a lot about Le Pen over the years.
And while I'm sure my views have shifted (if they had not, I would either not be human or be deluding myself), I think you'll find I've always thought her to be very different to her father.
She's a nationalist, not a racist. She's also a woman who thinks too highly of the state's powers to do good (which has led to rather unfortunate recent pro-EU moves).
If she became President, she would attempt to run France's industrial policy herself. She would direct what factories were built where, and what the right system of power generation is, etc.
That is a recipe for disaster.
I don’t doubt any of that and I don’t intend it as a criticism. It’s just interesting that Le Pen winning is no longer seen by many as some sort of Petain retread, which I’m sure it widely was say 10 years ago. And makes it that much more likely that this time (or the time after) she might win.
She might very well win.
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
I don’t know her platform. But I would definitely support more active involvement by the state in improving national strategic resilience, if necessary through direct ownership of parts of industry and the supply chain. Perhaps this is not the same thing as she is planning. Is she at least going to take France out the euro if she wins (even if she denies it now)?
She has given speeches about how the EU should be a club of Christian countries standing up against the Islamic East.
She had never really believed that France should leave the Euro. Her only concern is if Euro membership would prevent her from following a corbyn-esque interventionist economic policy.
I dunno. Sounds pretty racist to me.
Many in France have never forgiven the mulslims in Algeria for kicking them out. I think Le Pen and Zemmour are both playing to that constituency. One of the few good reasons for leaving the EU is that the French are gradually going nuts.
The French spent most of the period from 1788 to 1916 going nuts.
They got through it somehow....
Are you familiar with James Barr’s a line in the sand? The 1916 reference seems very precise for France getting over their Nuts period.
Thread on possible importation of new variant into London (Leon and other Londoners of a nervous disposition, look away):
After looking like it was nearing a peak a few days ago, London has begun climbing England's regional rankings again. It passed the West Midlands a couple of days ago and we have a north/south divide developing, but with the south on top. I have a very bad feeling about this. 6/6
Thing One's school is running a four day week next week (each day, a different year group at home online) because they have too many staff off sick. And keeping windows open is getting increasingly difficult.
Especially if you don't want a lockdown, it's hard to avoid a bad feeling about all of this.
I think (hope?) that the key is how sick people get. If there are a ton of cases, but people are not needing hospital care then we may be ok. But that’s a big question right now.
The problem is that even if it is milder, if infections are allowed to double every week then hospitalisations and deaths will double every week too. That won't be sustainable for very long at all.
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
Unkind, a few mor enice pictures like that would beat a lot of the drivel written.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
'Went' to a Zoom recently where the speaker argued that the use of iron in war equipment at the Battle of Kadesh around BC1274 signalled the end of bronze in military weapons and their replacement by iron. Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
The video I watched reckoned the incursions by The Boat People led to a vicious cycle in the breakdown in Mediterranean trade, most notably tin, with only the Egypt of Rameses III able to weather the storm. With that effort marking the start of the long decline in Egypt’s power. All coming hot on the heels of drought/crop failures and several decades of earthquakes weakening the Mycenae and Hittites. Personally I don’t think Western Civilisation is in too robust a place right now if there was a further extraneous event on top of covid.
BIzarrely, there' s a pre-British Rail privatisation Christmas joke in the original Die Hard fillm. The passengers on a "Windsor Airlines" plane that the baddies are targetting, are told something like "there may be delays on the christmas arrival today, but like British Rail, we're late but we're getting there."
OECD, WTO, NATO etc rules commit us to some basic rules we have agreed in advance. We signed up to those commitments and they remain only as we committed them to. None of those organisations significantly changes the rules without our agreement.
While the UK is in NATO its strategic imperatives are always subservient to those of the US. That's fine while they mostly align but they increasingly don't. NATO has a tattered shroud of democracy via the council but the reality is nothing happens unless the US wants it to.
NATO exists to prevent and counter military attacks from other states on NATO territory. In this aim it has been remarkably successful, so much so that we don't notice its success. Compare the inter state war record within current NATO territory from 1949-now (72 years) and the 72 years from 1877-1949.
This of course may cease to be true - Russia may invade Latvia or somewhere in NATO on Boxing Day and the USA stand idly by. But it hasn't happened yet. I think that is because it works. NATO's enemies put it down to luck. We shall see.
"Brexit Britain 'way more advanced than EU' – Brussels humiliated in global row"
Story says
"Alexandre de Streel, academic co-director at the CERRE think tank, told Politico: “It is clear that the UK is in a way a bit more advanced than the EU so far in this idea of a comprehensive approach to merger review.""
Having served in the British Army and NHS, I take public service very seriously. Here are my 10 commitments that I'm making to you about how I will work for you.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
'Went' to a Zoom recently where the speaker argued that the use of iron in war equipment at the Battle of Kadesh around BC1274 signalled the end of bronze in military weapons and their replacement by iron. Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
He got that from a Wilbur Smith novel. Smith describes very credibly what happens when you take a bronze sword to an iron sword fight, might as well be made of chocolate. Never tried but I can see how it might be true given how bendy copper is.
It has been an intermittent source of idle questioning for me as to why bronze became so widely used. While it's harder than copper alone, the best 'mixer' tin, isn't that widely available.
"Brexit Britain 'way more advanced than EU' – Brussels humiliated in global row"
Story says
"Alexandre de Streel, academic co-director at the CERRE think tank, told Politico: “It is clear that the UK is in a way a bit more advanced than the EU so far in this idea of a comprehensive approach to merger review.""
I did tip a 18-1 hurdle winner last week (sort of, as we now know other outcomes than winning and losing) but Malky is the PB-er Stud Club ‘Super Stud’ at the moment 😍contesting our suggestions with his own - and they all go and win!
sensible weather this Saturday, breezy with scattered showers here in south, more showers up North.
There are some big chases at Sandown and Aintree, and a Welsh National dress rehearsal at Chepstow. And I havn’t a clue who is going to win any of those races, though I can’t wait to watch them.
After fun with my not so sleepy long shot last week, I’m going to make case for another long shot.
1:02 Wetherby - Flexi Furlough (long shot)
She has only won once and it was a bumper. Has never raced this extra for 3m distance before. Has been in a competitive finish at 2m 5f. In fact nearly always competitive and ground suits her.
I played back my 18-1 winner in slow mo on my pad, and I think they were generous to dead heat as it kept looking to me other horse won.
Guys, I am busy today so no time to really look at horses, on a 5 minute look I have done a small yankee just for an interest. No great thought behind it so would not recommend it.
White Pepper11/8 13:30 Aintree Tamar Bridge9/4 15:15 Aintree Grange Road7/4 11: 38 Chepstow Take Your Time7/4 12:47 Chepstow
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
'Went' to a Zoom recently where the speaker argued that the use of iron in war equipment at the Battle of Kadesh around BC1274 signalled the end of bronze in military weapons and their replacement by iron. Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
He got that from a Wilbur Smith novel. Smith describes very credibly what happens when you take a bronze sword to an iron sword fight, might as well be made of chocolate. Never tried but I can see how it might be true given how bendy copper is.
It has been an intermittent source of idle questioning for me as to why bronze became so widely used. While it's harder than copper alone, the best 'mixer' tin, isn't that widely available.
All came from Cornwall apparently. It's not that great either, but I suppose you naturally learn how to work softer metals first.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
'Went' to a Zoom recently where the speaker argued that the use of iron in war equipment at the Battle of Kadesh around BC1274 signalled the end of bronze in military weapons and their replacement by iron. Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
He got that from a Wilbur Smith novel. Smith describes very credibly what happens when you take a bronze sword to an iron sword fight, might as well be made of chocolate. Never tried but I can see how it might be true given how bendy copper is.
It has been an intermittent source of idle questioning for me as to why bronze became so widely used. While it's harder than copper alone, the best 'mixer' tin, isn't that widely available.
Iron’s melting point is about 500°C hotter than copper’s. There was plenty of tin in Cyprus and Cornwall and bits and price elsewhere. But yes, it did require a stable system of trade to make bigger Bronze Age civs thrive.
Somebody making a pitch for the top job? Vrroom vrrroom.
F**k off on cutting Income Tax. Reverse the NI cut first.
Cutting Income Tax while having NI higher just further reduces the taxes that are paid on unearned incomes, while further penalising those on earned incomes.
Not a hope. They are obviously pampering southern houseowners and their middle aged soon to retire children. Look at the increase to IHT threshold being mooted.
Point of information: Sweden, probably the most consistently left-of-centre country on the planet during the last 100 years, abolished inheritance tax in 2004. The parliamentary vote was unanimous and absolutely nobody is interested in reintroducing it.
Inheritance tax has got to be the daftest tax still on the books. It serves no one well. Just scrap it.
Indeed. It really penalises the middle well off and the poor in all sorts of ways - not least if you are not an Epping pensioner, or have nieces and nephews rather than children.
That's very interesting about the Swedish position.
There are intelligent, fairly serious republicans that go along with Trump because he is a winner. I don’t understand that either. I appreciate that you want to retain your seat, but associating with someone who incited a mob to storm the Capitol at the very least seems risky. They seem to think they can control him and ride the coat tails of a movement that wants to see the world burn.
The conservative militarists in 30's Germany thought they could control Hitler. That didn't well.
Trump was the first President in 40 years not to launch a new foreign war. Bandying about Hitler is not a particularly insightful comparison to make and is almost certainly counter productive in winning round Trump voters to your pov.
OK.
Obama inherited US military presences in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, you can say that he also ordered drone strikes in Libya, Yemen and Somalia (plus sending helicopters into Pakistan), I didn't notice him launching a new foreign war. Plus, if you're going to say that Trump didn't initiate any, you also have to account for the fact that the number of foreign drone strikes per year were basically unchanged. Only under Biden has the US taken a step back from bombing others,
Bush (W) - certainly did initiate wars. But prior to the US being actually attacked in 2001, I don't remember the US actually initiating any.
Clinton. The Balkans. But was that actually a war?
Bush (HW) - Iraq. But... the again, the US didn't exactly start that either,
As I understand it Trump not starting a war had more to do with the chiefs of staff rather than Trump’s judgement.
Trump did not start a war, but controls a Republican party that has all but rejected democracy and embraced violence as a means to secure the outcomes it wants.
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
I was watching a video yesterday about the great Bronze Age collapse. As you do. Numerous seemingly strong Mediterranean civilisations all withering away inside a human lifetime.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
'Went' to a Zoom recently where the speaker argued that the use of iron in war equipment at the Battle of Kadesh around BC1274 signalled the end of bronze in military weapons and their replacement by iron. Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
He got that from a Wilbur Smith novel. Smith describes very credibly what happens when you take a bronze sword to an iron sword fight, might as well be made of chocolate. Never tried but I can see how it might be true given how bendy copper is.
It has been an intermittent source of idle questioning for me as to why bronze became so widely used. While it's harder than copper alone, the best 'mixer' tin, isn't that widely available.
According to a quick search; bronze is easier to cast than copper, makes a harder blade, and is more resistant to corrosion.
Comments
Sadly, her principle idea is that the French state is insufficiently involved in making economic decisions on behalf of her citizens.
So anecdotes about individual double-jabbed people being infected with Omicron are meaningless. We need proper data, though we already have a study apparently showing more reinfection in South Africa than in previous waves. But it's the sheer growth rate compared with Delta (whatever exactly the reasons behind it) that is likely to cause problems for health services. The initial S-gene dropout data in the UK looks broadly consistent with the growth rate seen in South Africa, and fortunately that aspect will become clearer quite quickly.
Which *google* it does now anyway.
F1: because practice is from 2-3pm today with qualifying at 5pm the pre-qualifying ramble will be up at an according time.
People I know, in the West of England, also keep their infection status to themselves and to those they think need to know.
I can tolerate that this blog rarely talks about political betting, because 98% of the time it is vaguely about politics, current affairs, society and culture, and 1% of the time about betting.
Please find a “small mammal comedy” blog for your insta rejects.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/03/republican-party-democracy-political-violence-trumpism
Across what was once called the Free World, governments and parties of the right are dismantling the democracies, the liberties and freedoms they claim so loudly to believe in. You see it in the US, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, India, Brazil and so on. It's terrifying, quite frankly. But even more terrifying is that they are doing it with the acquiescence of so many.
OECD, WTO, NATO etc rules commit us to some basic rules we have agreed in advance. We signed up to those commitments and they remain only as we committed them to. None of those organisations significantly changes the rules without our agreement.
The EU was a law-setting body. It had legislative power to change the laws without our agreement. Post-Euro and post-Lisbon Treaty the extension of QMV meant if Eurozone nations wanted a law change they could get it without any agreement or input from non-Euro nations. Protection for the non-Euro nations was one of the most important reforms David Cameron set out to achieve and he failed to get any legally binding protections.
That was one of the key ways that Cameron's negotiation were a failure and that tipped me from Remain to Leave.
Also threats.
Some folk don't like the RNLI rescuing people of the wrong sort, it seems.
Edit: timing is going to be particularly damaging in the runup to Christmas (cards, calendars, pressies all being ordered online), I'd add.
What we have is a very fragile thing indeed, arguably even more so than for the ancients, because interconnectedness brings vulnerability as well as wealth and our interconnectedness is beyond compare.
Which is why I would relegate levelling up behind strategic resilience in my policy agenda. Making sure that the light of reason survives the 21st century in a thriving state should be our very highest priority.
She had never really believed that France should leave the Euro. Her only concern is if Euro membership would prevent her from following a corbyn-esque interventionist economic policy.
Talking of bias…
Somewhat over-simplified, I thought; unlikely that one event was so crucial and anyway, what was happening in other parts of the world.
Dropping bombs is what Obama did that Trumpites insist was 'war', and which Donald did but apparently isn't war for *reasons*
Poor wee lemming Scotland being held by the Evil English Empire just too high for her to jump off safely.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–2010)
The main exception was 1992-7, but that was a bit of a special case.
After looking like it was nearing a peak a few days ago, London has begun climbing England's regional rankings again. It passed the West Midlands a couple of days ago and we have a north/south divide developing, but with the south on top. I have a very bad feeling about this. 6/6
https://twitter.com/ArtyVapes/status/1466998214108893191
A senior Conservative source said some members of Boris Johnson’s Cabinet were “not pulling their weight” on the doorstep in the constituency, while others worried that a Bexley campaign team run by the Tory deputy party chairman, Justin Tomlinson, was switching its focus to North Shropshire too late.
Jitters about the vote to replace Mr Paterson, who held a majority of almost 23,000 votes, come after the Conservatives’ majority was reduced from 19,000 to less than 5,000 in Old Bexley and Sidcup on Thursday.
"Join us on a doom jump!"
"Stay and let us use your bones as toothpicks!"
If the electoral commission is bribed enough, they can make Doom / Crushed the answers on the next ref.
The Labour left chose ideological purity over power (hence BJO posting anti Starmer propaganda up thread). Conservatives choose pragmatism, and so long as Johnson is winning, the lies, the immorality the corruption are fine. However they will laugh at him and worse when he becomes a liability.
Especially if you don't want a lockdown, it's hard to avoid a bad feeling about all of this.
The converse is true of Conservatives. They mostly know that something is wrong, but their addiction to pragmatism robs them of their ideals.
The tragedy of the left is they're too fussy. The tragedy of the right is they aren't fussy enough.
They got through it somehow....
Having served in the British Army and NHS, I take public service very seriously. Here are my 10 commitments that I'm making to you about how I will work for you.
https://twitter.com/DrNShastriHurst/status/1466874434044760070
Paging @Stodge @Malky the Super Stud @Topping @Kinny and @anyone who wants to join in PBs Stud Club and talk racing tips
I did tip a 18-1 hurdle winner last week (sort of, as we now know other outcomes than winning and losing) but Malky is the PB-er Stud Club ‘Super Stud’ at the moment 😍contesting our suggestions with his own - and they all go and win!
sensible weather this Saturday, breezy with scattered showers here in south, more showers up North.
There are some big chases at Sandown and Aintree, and a Welsh National dress rehearsal at Chepstow. And I havn’t a clue who is going to win any of those races, though I can’t wait to watch them.
instead I am sticking to hurdles
1:30 Aintree - Malakahna (NAP)
Sandown 15:35 - Samarrive (nb)
After fun with my not so sleepy long shot last week, I’m going to make case for another long shot.
1:02 Wetherby - Flexi Furlough (long shot)
She has only won once and it was a bumper. Has never raced this extra for 3m distance before. Has been in a competitive finish at 2m 5f. In fact nearly always competitive and ground suits her.
I played back my 18-1 winner in slow mo on my pad, and I think they were generous to dead heat as it kept looking to me other horse won.
Warmonger Bartlet is what I meant to say.
I've lived through Governments led by five Labour leaders, and while I can only really recall the last days of the Attlee government, it does seem to me that neither he nor the other successful leaders could be described as ideologues. AIUI Attlee had his views, but acted as a chairman, as did Wilson, although he could be devious. Blair can't be described as an ideologue, but he has, or at least had, a concept of a fairer society.
If only Blair had trusted his instincts and taken Roy Jenkins advice on electoral reform instead of John Prescott's.
A poll of over 4,200 GB News viewers says Die Hard is a Christmas film, with 66% of respondents voting in favour of the Bruce Willis film being a festive classic.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1467058675042902016
And too much branding. The RM Williams top is a dogwhistle to the shire tory vote that he is really one of them.
No, I wasn't one of the group!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/04/it-is-impossible-to-work-seriously-with-boris-johnsons-government
All beliefs have shadings, and only a small minority entirely insist on the most extreme version possible (Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.). Some tack to the wind surprisingly far, and Marine Le Pen has made a definite effort to appear electable. She still seems to me a racist and religious nutter, just one prepared to make the effort to look relatively sane.
Here’s a look at the issue:
https://www.slashfilm.com/673162/heres-why-movie-dialogue-has-gotten-more-difficult-to-understand-and-three-ways-to-fix-it/
This of course may cease to be true - Russia may invade Latvia or somewhere in NATO on Boxing Day and the USA stand idly by. But it hasn't happened yet. I think that is because it works. NATO's enemies put it down to luck. We shall see.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1530193/brexit-news-eu-big-tech-facebook-meta-giphy
Headline, and twitter link to story says
"Brexit Britain 'way more advanced than EU' – Brussels humiliated in global row"
Story says
"Alexandre de Streel, academic co-director at the CERRE think tank, told Politico: “It is clear that the UK is in a way a bit more advanced than the EU so far in this idea of a comprehensive approach to merger review.""
White Pepper11/8 13:30 Aintree
Tamar Bridge9/4 15:15 Aintree
Grange Road7/4 11: 38 Chepstow
Take Your Time7/4 12:47 Chepstow
Good luck to everyone.
That's very interesting about the Swedish position.