What's missing isn't just 2 Unlimited, whoever they were.
It's also having a political genius as Labour leader.
If Labour had a Blair-like figure at its head, the Tories would be dead and buried. It is easy to forget now the huge advantage he got from the fawning coverage in most of the print, and virtually all the broadcast, media and how, for a while, he seemed to have a sixth sense of the public mood.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, Labour have Sir Keir Starmer, at least for the moment.
Not sure it’s fair to SKS to keep comparing him to this semi-mythical centrist god from another era. He was a political class act, Blair, but was he really such a colossus? Wouldn't Smith have won in 97 by over 100 probably? Think he likely would.
And both Blair and Smith depended on Kinnock having done a lot of the dragging of Labour back from madness.
BBC: several people killed in Copenhagen shopping centre shooting.
Rumors, supported by vids, suggest this might be a “white supremacist” attack on BIPOCs
About ten years ago, friend of mine & his wife were visiting Denmark, and ended up in a large bar or club or something like that in Copenhagen. Need to point out that he is somewhat dark (but only somewhat) complected, like some southern Germans, also
Anyway, when the got to the place, he went to the restroom while his wife order a couple beers. After a while, the place being busy (and NOT brightly lit) he went up to the bar to fetch another round.
Except the bartenders refused to serve him. Why? Turned out that they though he was a Greenlander.
Soviet flags are flying in centre of Ukrainian city of Lysychansk reports NY Times.
Putin is basically a complete product of his upbringing under late Soviet regimes. He cannot imagine a different world to that he was born into.
Do Russians really want to be back in the USSR?
Lots of Soviet flags have been shown flying over captured territory. Initially put-down to over-enthusiastic troops; it's happened so much I suspect it's a deliberate signalling of intent.
Sign of his and his regime's desperation. Trying to claw back lost glories of an old empire and so on.
If only Yeltsin hadn't turned out to be an alcoholic maybe it would all be different.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I'm not sure what your point is. One of those "narrow exceptions" is "risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (up to 24 weeks in the pregnancy)", which as I understand it is quite liberally interpreted.
Yes.
Our formulation is abortion is illegal except ... define where it's ok.
As opposed to abortion is legal except ... define where it's not ok.
'The real trick of McKinsey is being everywhere. If you are a corporate strategist, you can try to do the best you can with what your analysts tell you and your own data. But if you hire McKinsey you are sure their advice will be at least as good as the one they are giving your competitors. Of course they don’t make it obvious. They have internal shielding, privacy protection, the whole shebang. But you might get invited to be part of the benchmark which matters and their internal documentation pulls cleverly from all their cases. It’s subtle but hiring them is the closest you can get to a cartel without crossing the line. That’s why they are so expensive.'
Would any PBer care to elaborate?
That’s sounds like the “negative but positive “ pitch that McKinsey and the other big consultancies would like you to believe.
Personally I think their advice is a bit like AI. Sounds awesome and produces some funky art (PowerPoint) but when you give it a real problem like fully autonomous driving, it fails.
Their mind set seems to run on tram lines - all about outsourcing, turning your business into a hedge fund that owns IP. Despite that model having failed many, many times. Works for a bit - until you need new IP. And all your knowledge creators have been outsourced…
Thanks for the info. Have you any companies in mind when you talk of dropping the in house researchers and suffering for it?
Boeing are a classic of forgetting how to do their primary skill - creating new planes and manufacturing them.
Also Boeing (again) and LockMart for losing all their skills in creating new rockets and space vehicles.
To be fair to LockMart, they're not in the business of large rockets (deliberate bang rockets are a different matter). Their orbital rocket program went to ULA, who are still excellent (but expensive). And Tory Bruno totally owns Musk in the Twitter stakes.
Boeing's mucked up the SLS, and whilst the Orion capsule (made by LockMart) has had problems, it has been ready for yonks, whereas the SLS rocket has not been.
They’ve achieved monumental failure in return for billions. Their only hope is that the FAA has bought them enough time to salvage a tiny portion of their dignity.
How have LockMart achieved 'monumental failure' ?
What have they achieved since Delta Clipper, in space launch, apart from cancelled programs, after billions spent?
“It was tooooo hard….”
Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida….
Cry me a fucking river….
Though they did put in plea to fund their comic hypersonics program in the latest Topgun.
AIUI LockMart have not been in the space launch business for 15 years (leaving aside Trident), oddly due to Boeing's racketeering.
ULA is a very different company, being ably run by Tory Bruno.
(*) This was 18 years ago. I feel I should stop mentioning it, but it's so darned funny.
They have been regularly bidding on various launch program initiatives - mostly around cheap/quick launch. They spend the money and then announce “too hard”
A chap I know (slightly) actually pointed out at a presentation that they did for the Air Force, that their bid was either a lie or insane. An air started RS25 as a cheap option?
I fear that's very different from what you wrote.
The chap in question was a contractor, hired by the Air Force to help review bids - an external voice.
LockMart proposed a cheap rapid reaction launch space plane. Using an air started RS25. Long after Ares-1 acquired the J-2X….
Fair enough.
But I fail to see what that has to do with "Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida…." The SSME (RS-25) is very much *not* Russian.
It might well be that LockMart don't want to be in the space launch business for two reasons: they are part-owners of ULA, and their main space business is satellites - that is where the real money is. But neither do they want to ignore possibilities. If possible contracts come up, put in a proposal and see what happens.
As an aside, I have a great deal of time for ULA and Tory Bruno.
Soviet flags are flying in centre of Ukrainian city of Lysychansk reports NY Times.
Putin is basically a complete product of his upbringing under late Soviet regimes. He cannot imagine a different world to that he was born into.
Do Russians really want to be back in the USSR?
Lots of Soviet flags have been shown flying over captured territory. Initially put-down to over-enthusiastic troops; it's happened so much I suspect it's a deliberate signalling of intent.
Sign of his and his regime's desperation. Trying to claw back lost glories of an old empire and so on.
(Snip)
From what Putin has been saying, he wants a return to that empire. Which is why everyone who says Ukraine should cede land for peace are wrong - Ukraine is just the start of his regime's ambitions.
He must be given no quarter. Every agreement on any gains he sees as Western/Ukr weakness and emboldens him.
I think next week or two, having gained the Donbass enough to sell to his people, he calls for ceasefire in order to rearm and resupply.
He might even settle for two or three years of ceasefire in order to wait for Trump.
If AI is so good, why are so many classic music videos on YouTube still only available in poor quality? You'd think it would be able to automatically "regenerate" them into HD.
Soviet flags are flying in centre of Ukrainian city of Lysychansk reports NY Times.
Putin is basically a complete product of his upbringing under late Soviet regimes. He cannot imagine a different world to that he was born into.
Do Russians really want to be back in the USSR?
Flying of Soviet flags by Russian Putinists = Flying of Confederate flags by American Trumpists.
Different countries, same message.
Not quite surely? The soviet republic was at heart Marxist. Putin doesn't believe in Marx or any of his theories - he is an old fashioned Russian Empire imperialist who would rather be Chief of Security under Czar Nicholas VII.
Whereas Trumpsters do want to live under Wallace's theoretical view of the world.
Marxism has nothing to do with it. Strictly window-dressing & code for brute force.
By "Wallace's theoretical view of the world" you mean George Wallace?
The guy who ended his career depending on black votes? NOT what you'd call a theoretician of anything. Rather, practical populist like 45, Mad Vlad and PMBJBJ.
EDIT - Actually, George Wallace was a MUCH better politico AND human being than the Three Stooges referenced.
Soviet flags are flying in centre of Ukrainian city of Lysychansk reports NY Times.
Putin is basically a complete product of his upbringing under late Soviet regimes. He cannot imagine a different world to that he was born into.
Do Russians really want to be back in the USSR?
Lots of Soviet flags have been shown flying over captured territory. Initially put-down to over-enthusiastic troops; it's happened so much I suspect it's a deliberate signalling of intent.
Sign of his and his regime's desperation. Trying to claw back lost glories of an old empire and so on.
(Snip)
From what Putin has been saying, he wants a return to that empire. Which is why everyone who says Ukraine should cede land for peace are wrong - Ukraine is just the start of his regime's ambitions.
He must be given no quarter. Every agreement on any gains he sees as Western/Ukr weakness and emboldens him.
I think next week or two, having gained the Donbass enough to sell to his people, he calls for ceasefire in order to rearm and resupply.
He might even settle for two or three years of ceasefire in order to wait for Trump.
Having probably limited immediate ambitions it does seem pretty likely that ignoring all the nazi and self defence pretexts Putin will return to the one about defending the puppet states and declare his magnaminity in offering terms.
What's incredible is when they have the flat out balls to complain about Ukraine allegedly hitting some of their territory. Oh the horror!
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Does this mean that Parti Québécois are a bunch of quitters?
Good deal of similarity re: Quebec & Scotland re: independence. Think one significant difference is that in la belle province, francophone conservatives have traditionally dominated traditional Quebec nationalism. Which by long tradition is oriented to maximizing rights, standing and home rule for French Quebec within Confederation, as opposed to independence aka separatism from Canada. BTW (also FYI) note that the name of Quebec legislature is Assemblée nationale.
In contrast, PQ founders, voters and leaders are predominately from the left, as with SNP. Notable exception of Lucien Bouchard, who defected from federal Progressive Conservatives (he was a Brian Mulroney crony-politico) to PQ in order to become Quebec premier. Which presaged the rise of new Quebec nationalist political parties in the traditionalist mold, in particular Coalition Avenir Québec led by current Premier François Legault, who defected from PQ to found CAQ as HIS means of ascent.
Wondering how lack of similar conservative political nationalism in Scotland, at least anywhere near same degree of support actual or potential, impacts the situation there? And if there is any real prospect for the rise of such a movement, which - as in Quebec - focuses not on independence, but on putting the squeeze on London for maximum Scottish authority & autonomy within the United Kingdom?
Could Scottish Labour OR Liberal Democrats morph to fill this space, assuming it exists?
Scottish Labour don't exist. It's all one UK supranational party, Labour. The only reason they can even put that name on the voting paper is that a special exception exists in the electoral literature concerning this usage of 'Scottish'. I forget the Act in question, but it's there all right.
SLD were once very Home Rule but they've gone very right wing in the last couple of decades.
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
It should be mentioned that pro-Russian parties got a very small percentage of the vote even with the help of massive interference for the pro-Russian parties from Russia.
Given that our population pyramid is looking more like a population dadbod the idea of importing workers does not frighten or bother me. I don't want to see what happens when an increasingly small working-age population needs to support a large generation with complex needs and the political power to avoid any contribution.
On housing, frankly we need to smash the power of the NIMBYs. Completely gut the ability to object to new housing developments. Fuck your view, fuck your "village character", fuck your endless concern trolling. Pair that up with a legal requirement for developers to fund services (schools, GP surgeries, proper integrated community stuff) and a tax on land revaluation after usage change. Bang developer heads together and put a bullet in the NIMBYs, crash house prices into the ground and set up a relief fund funded the valuation tax to help out single home owners who suffer negative equity as a consequence.
Not that I expect any party to do something that might hurt the asset holding class.
This policy would be catastrophic. You just need to look at build costs to understand why. Build cost inflation is such that even building on green fields can quickly become unviable - that is even before you have tried to tax uplift. There would be no uplift to tax. A 100sqm house costs £200k to build (£2k/sqm) before the value of land, developer profit and planning gain is factored in to the equation. That is almost double what it was a decade ago but wage inflation has not risen in line with build cost inflation. Many families could not afford to buy a house even if it was sold to them at build cost.
The basic problem is with increases in the cost of materials, skilled labour and the imposition of new regulation that affects housebuilding.
That's very interesting. I didn't realise material costs had risen so much. What's behind it? Demand in East Asia?
Mega supply chain problems due to Covid.
However, there are definitely ways we can bring the costs of housing down, e.g. prefab/modular (to a much higher quality than it was back in the day).
If I had my way, I would pick a dozen sites across the UK and turn them into low construction cost pre-fab Levittowns, nimbys be damned. The only thing I would change is that I think we need to build higher density. The idea of everyone having a sprawling detached with garden and white picket fence just isn't practical for the UK.
These 'pre fab' solutions they serve the high end of the market and are more expensive than building with bricks. There are people in the UK who have built factories where houses can be made, but it is more expensive than the traditional form of construction.
You can buy a static caravan for about £1k / sqm. But this is not a permanent structure and does not comply with building regulations. It falls apart and becomes uninhabitable after 20 years. You would just be building shanty towns.
Can you point to an example of a prefab that would be of decent quality, please? Would be interested to see what it is like.
There's loads of it around. Countryside are a massive housebuilder and have a factory in the midlands where they build houses off site, the capacity is 3500 a year. They look no different to regular blockwork housing. The driver isn't price, it is pace and quality.
Correct; it's nothing new. And building timber frame in a factory never stopped in Scotland afaik eg Stuart Milne Group. Though I see that Stuart Milne himself is retiring.
Even down here Space4 have been doing offsite construction since 2000 in a large factory, and are now part of Persimmon.
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
For those who think I am wrong re the school marking question, would you deduct 80% of the marks for a non meaningful punctuation error in a maths or physics answer?
Nobody of sound mind and good character thinks you're wrong. Piece of sadistic schoolmastering that was. Wrong side of tough love.
Sadistic? Not really - I could live with getting 2/10 on a piece of homework. And it made me much more careful about punctuation in general (in all subjects) in a way that just having a word with me wouldn't have done.
I suppose a different person might have been affected more deeply. But then maybe the teacher would have treated the matter differently if he had been dealing with a more sensitive person.
Ah fair enough. Teachers can psychologically wound though.
When I was 13, in French class, I pretended I'd passed through Avignon on a family motoring holiday (don't know why) and my French teacher kind of sussed I really hadn't. So what he did was, he got me chatting - this was in front of the whole class - and worked it round to the bridge. Said we must have driven over that then, n'est ce pas?
I said oui oui. Course. Notice anything? he said. Not really, I said. Then he told the class about the bridge and there was a picture available.
Everybody sniggered.
The shame of that is something I recall to this day (as you can see). And it was nearly 50 years ago.
Teachers, they have to be careful.
That’s actually quite terrible. Pure if mild sadism. Sympathies
Cheers, thank you. And it wasn't even as if I was an habitual smartarse who was cruising for a bruising. Just a quiet studious boy.
IF someone really wants to take AI to next level, perhaps they should start building a race of super-sports-bots?
Capable of preforming up to current top-tier standards and then some of NFL, Premier League, NBA, East Wokeshire Trans-BIPOC Snooker Association, etc., etc.
AND at a cost greatly below current payroll for top professional talent.
BTW, speaking of top sports, guess who is the evil genius behind last week's defection of USC and UCLA to the Big-10 (bigger than that) from the Pac-12 (now back down to 10)?
Rupert Murdoch! Via Fox. Like the man said back in the day, follow the money . . .
'The real trick of McKinsey is being everywhere. If you are a corporate strategist, you can try to do the best you can with what your analysts tell you and your own data. But if you hire McKinsey you are sure their advice will be at least as good as the one they are giving your competitors. Of course they don’t make it obvious. They have internal shielding, privacy protection, the whole shebang. But you might get invited to be part of the benchmark which matters and their internal documentation pulls cleverly from all their cases. It’s subtle but hiring them is the closest you can get to a cartel without crossing the line. That’s why they are so expensive.'
Would any PBer care to elaborate?
That’s sounds like the “negative but positive “ pitch that McKinsey and the other big consultancies would like you to believe.
Personally I think their advice is a bit like AI. Sounds awesome and produces some funky art (PowerPoint) but when you give it a real problem like fully autonomous driving, it fails.
Their mind set seems to run on tram lines - all about outsourcing, turning your business into a hedge fund that owns IP. Despite that model having failed many, many times. Works for a bit - until you need new IP. And all your knowledge creators have been outsourced…
Thanks for the info. Have you any companies in mind when you talk of dropping the in house researchers and suffering for it?
Boeing are a classic of forgetting how to do their primary skill - creating new planes and manufacturing them.
Also Boeing (again) and LockMart for losing all their skills in creating new rockets and space vehicles.
To be fair to LockMart, they're not in the business of large rockets (deliberate bang rockets are a different matter). Their orbital rocket program went to ULA, who are still excellent (but expensive). And Tory Bruno totally owns Musk in the Twitter stakes.
Boeing's mucked up the SLS, and whilst the Orion capsule (made by LockMart) has had problems, it has been ready for yonks, whereas the SLS rocket has not been.
They’ve achieved monumental failure in return for billions. Their only hope is that the FAA has bought them enough time to salvage a tiny portion of their dignity.
How have LockMart achieved 'monumental failure' ?
What have they achieved since Delta Clipper, in space launch, apart from cancelled programs, after billions spent?
“It was tooooo hard….”
Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida….
Cry me a fucking river….
Though they did put in plea to fund their comic hypersonics program in the latest Topgun.
AIUI LockMart have not been in the space launch business for 15 years (leaving aside Trident), oddly due to Boeing's racketeering.
ULA is a very different company, being ably run by Tory Bruno.
(*) This was 18 years ago. I feel I should stop mentioning it, but it's so darned funny.
They have been regularly bidding on various launch program initiatives - mostly around cheap/quick launch. They spend the money and then announce “too hard”
A chap I know (slightly) actually pointed out at a presentation that they did for the Air Force, that their bid was either a lie or insane. An air started RS25 as a cheap option?
I fear that's very different from what you wrote.
The chap in question was a contractor, hired by the Air Force to help review bids - an external voice.
LockMart proposed a cheap rapid reaction launch space plane. Using an air started RS25. Long after Ares-1 acquired the J-2X….
Fair enough.
But I fail to see what that has to do with "Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida…." The SSME (RS-25) is very much *not* Russian.
It might well be that LockMart don't want to be in the space launch business for two reasons: they are part-owners of ULA, and their main space business is satellites - that is where the real money is. But neither do they want to ignore possibilities. If possible contracts come up, put in a proposal and see what happens.
As an aside, I have a great deal of time for ULA and Tory Bruno.
Tory gets it - his problem is abusive parents.
Both LockMart and Boeing having been swallowing launch development cash for decades while producing bullshit. At least Armadillo achieved actual liftoff….
The Russian engines thing was discovered by the late Senator McCain - he followed the trail of the Russian engines for Atlas and discovered they were being imported by a company in Florida with interesting ownership. That gave them an American designation and doubled the price. And had no employees.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
If we win next time, the raison d’etre of the SNP will no longer exist, and Sturgeon and her acolytes will no longer be in power. If we lose, Sturgeon and her acolytes will be kicked out. Although I want Scottish Independence, whatever the result, Sturgeon and her acolytes will be out of power, That’s why there won’t be a referendum any time soon. Better a big fish in a small pond than a tiddler on the world stage, unless she can spread her poison worldwide.
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
Worth noting that 27% of Britons want our empire back, 38% of Leavers.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Given that our population pyramid is looking more like a population dadbod the idea of importing workers does not frighten or bother me. I don't want to see what happens when an increasingly small working-age population needs to support a large generation with complex needs and the political power to avoid any contribution.
On housing, frankly we need to smash the power of the NIMBYs. Completely gut the ability to object to new housing developments. Fuck your view, fuck your "village character", fuck your endless concern trolling. Pair that up with a legal requirement for developers to fund services (schools, GP surgeries, proper integrated community stuff) and a tax on land revaluation after usage change. Bang developer heads together and put a bullet in the NIMBYs, crash house prices into the ground and set up a relief fund funded the valuation tax to help out single home owners who suffer negative equity as a consequence.
Not that I expect any party to do something that might hurt the asset holding class.
This policy would be catastrophic. You just need to look at build costs to understand why. Build cost inflation is such that even building on green fields can quickly become unviable - that is even before you have tried to tax uplift. There would be no uplift to tax. A 100sqm house costs £200k to build (£2k/sqm) before the value of land, developer profit and planning gain is factored in to the equation. That is almost double what it was a decade ago but wage inflation has not risen in line with build cost inflation. Many families could not afford to buy a house even if it was sold to them at build cost.
The basic problem is with increases in the cost of materials, skilled labour and the imposition of new regulation that affects housebuilding.
That's very interesting. I didn't realise material costs had risen so much. What's behind it? Demand in East Asia?
Mega supply chain problems due to Covid.
However, there are definitely ways we can bring the costs of housing down, e.g. prefab/modular (to a much higher quality than it was back in the day).
If I had my way, I would pick a dozen sites across the UK and turn them into low construction cost pre-fab Levittowns, nimbys be damned. The only thing I would change is that I think we need to build higher density. The idea of everyone having a sprawling detached with garden and white picket fence just isn't practical for the UK.
These 'pre fab' solutions they serve the high end of the market and are more expensive than building with bricks. There are people in the UK who have built factories where houses can be made, but it is more expensive than the traditional form of construction.
You can buy a static caravan for about £1k / sqm. But this is not a permanent structure and does not comply with building regulations. It falls apart and becomes uninhabitable after 20 years. You would just be building shanty towns.
Can you point to an example of a prefab that would be of decent quality, please? Would be interested to see what it is like.
There's loads of it around. Countryside are a massive housebuilder and have a factory in the midlands where they build houses off site, the capacity is 3500 a year. They look no different to regular blockwork housing. The driver isn't price, it is pace and quality.
Correct; it's nothing new. And building timber frame in a factory never stopped in Scotland afaik eg Stuart Milne Group. Though I see that Stuart Milne himself is retiring.
Even down here Space4 have been doing offsite construction since 2000 in a large factory, and are now part of Persimmon.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I'm not sure what your point is. One of those "narrow exceptions" is "risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (up to 24 weeks in the pregnancy)", which as I understand it is quite liberally interpreted.
Yes.
Our formulation is abortion is illegal except ... define where it's ok.
As opposed to abortion is legal except ... define where it's not ok.
Broadly the same result in practice.
The 1967 Act was written in order that it would get over the line and be adopted. To do that, it is full of compromises, or at least what appear to be compromises, rather than simply legalising abortion on demand in the first trimester. In practice, it basically does simply legalise abortion on demand in the first trimester, which is what its proponents wanted, although some of the compromises made at the time have had longer lasting effects (e.g. the Act didn't cover Northern Ireland).
It is similar to the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which legalised male homosexual acts in England & Wales, but again with various compromises, like a higher age of consent, and it didn't cover Northern Ireland or Scotland. (This was in recognition of the inherently more conservative nature of Scottish culture...)
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
Worth noting that 27% of Britons want our empire back, 38% of Leavers.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
If we win next time, the raison d’etre of the SNP will no longer exist, and Sturgeon and her acolytes will no longer be in power. If we lose, Sturgeon and her acolytes will be kicked out. Although I want Scottish Independence, whatever the result, Sturgeon and her acolytes will be out of power, That’s why there won’t be a referendum any time soon. Better a big fish in a small pond than a tiddler on the world stage, unless she can spread her poison worldwide.
I’m assuming from the hatred of Sturgeon that you’re an Alba supporter. Genuine question, what do you think should be (and should have been) the strategy that would guarantee Indy ref II?
Given that our population pyramid is looking more like a population dadbod the idea of importing workers does not frighten or bother me. I don't want to see what happens when an increasingly small working-age population needs to support a large generation with complex needs and the political power to avoid any contribution.
On housing, frankly we need to smash the power of the NIMBYs. Completely gut the ability to object to new housing developments. Fuck your view, fuck your "village character", fuck your endless concern trolling. Pair that up with a legal requirement for developers to fund services (schools, GP surgeries, proper integrated community stuff) and a tax on land revaluation after usage change. Bang developer heads together and put a bullet in the NIMBYs, crash house prices into the ground and set up a relief fund funded the valuation tax to help out single home owners who suffer negative equity as a consequence.
Not that I expect any party to do something that might hurt the asset holding class.
This policy would be catastrophic. You just need to look at build costs to understand why. Build cost inflation is such that even building on green fields can quickly become unviable - that is even before you have tried to tax uplift. There would be no uplift to tax. A 100sqm house costs £200k to build (£2k/sqm) before the value of land, developer profit and planning gain is factored in to the equation. That is almost double what it was a decade ago but wage inflation has not risen in line with build cost inflation. Many families could not afford to buy a house even if it was sold to them at build cost.
The basic problem is with increases in the cost of materials, skilled labour and the imposition of new regulation that affects housebuilding.
That's very interesting. I didn't realise material costs had risen so much. What's behind it? Demand in East Asia?
Mega supply chain problems due to Covid.
However, there are definitely ways we can bring the costs of housing down, e.g. prefab/modular (to a much higher quality than it was back in the day).
If I had my way, I would pick a dozen sites across the UK and turn them into low construction cost pre-fab Levittowns, nimbys be damned. The only thing I would change is that I think we need to build higher density. The idea of everyone having a sprawling detached with garden and white picket fence just isn't practical for the UK.
These 'pre fab' solutions they serve the high end of the market and are more expensive than building with bricks. There are people in the UK who have built factories where houses can be made, but it is more expensive than the traditional form of construction.
You can buy a static caravan for about £1k / sqm. But this is not a permanent structure and does not comply with building regulations. It falls apart and becomes uninhabitable after 20 years. You would just be building shanty towns.
Can you point to an example of a prefab that would be of decent quality, please? Would be interested to see what it is like.
There's loads of it around. Countryside are a massive housebuilder and have a factory in the midlands where they build houses off site, the capacity is 3500 a year. They look no different to regular blockwork housing. The driver isn't price, it is pace and quality.
Correct; it's nothing new. And building timber frame in a factory never stopped in Scotland afaik eg Stuart Milne Group. Though I see that Stuart Milne himself is retiring.
Even down here Space4 have been doing offsite construction since 2000 in a large factory, and are now part of Persimmon.
Has there ever been a football club chairman that has destroyed his club’s ambition as totally as Stewart Milne?
The post David Murray banter years?
Glasgow Rangers never lost their ambition, even when in the lower leagues. If Aberdeen were to be relegated, they wouldn’t be promoted again for many years.
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
Worth noting that 27% of Britons want our empire back, 38% of Leavers.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
Worth noting that 27% of Britons want our empire back, 38% of Leavers.
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
Worth noting that 27% of Britons want our empire back, 38% of Leavers.
'The real trick of McKinsey is being everywhere. If you are a corporate strategist, you can try to do the best you can with what your analysts tell you and your own data. But if you hire McKinsey you are sure their advice will be at least as good as the one they are giving your competitors. Of course they don’t make it obvious. They have internal shielding, privacy protection, the whole shebang. But you might get invited to be part of the benchmark which matters and their internal documentation pulls cleverly from all their cases. It’s subtle but hiring them is the closest you can get to a cartel without crossing the line. That’s why they are so expensive.'
Would any PBer care to elaborate?
That’s sounds like the “negative but positive “ pitch that McKinsey and the other big consultancies would like you to believe.
Personally I think their advice is a bit like AI. Sounds awesome and produces some funky art (PowerPoint) but when you give it a real problem like fully autonomous driving, it fails.
Their mind set seems to run on tram lines - all about outsourcing, turning your business into a hedge fund that owns IP. Despite that model having failed many, many times. Works for a bit - until you need new IP. And all your knowledge creators have been outsourced…
Thanks for the info. Have you any companies in mind when you talk of dropping the in house researchers and suffering for it?
Boeing are a classic of forgetting how to do their primary skill - creating new planes and manufacturing them.
Also Boeing (again) and LockMart for losing all their skills in creating new rockets and space vehicles.
To be fair to LockMart, they're not in the business of large rockets (deliberate bang rockets are a different matter). Their orbital rocket program went to ULA, who are still excellent (but expensive). And Tory Bruno totally owns Musk in the Twitter stakes.
Boeing's mucked up the SLS, and whilst the Orion capsule (made by LockMart) has had problems, it has been ready for yonks, whereas the SLS rocket has not been.
They’ve achieved monumental failure in return for billions. Their only hope is that the FAA has bought them enough time to salvage a tiny portion of their dignity.
How have LockMart achieved 'monumental failure' ?
What have they achieved since Delta Clipper, in space launch, apart from cancelled programs, after billions spent?
“It was tooooo hard….”
Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida….
Cry me a fucking river….
Though they did put in plea to fund their comic hypersonics program in the latest Topgun.
AIUI LockMart have not been in the space launch business for 15 years (leaving aside Trident), oddly due to Boeing's racketeering.
ULA is a very different company, being ably run by Tory Bruno.
(*) This was 18 years ago. I feel I should stop mentioning it, but it's so darned funny.
They have been regularly bidding on various launch program initiatives - mostly around cheap/quick launch. They spend the money and then announce “too hard”
A chap I know (slightly) actually pointed out at a presentation that they did for the Air Force, that their bid was either a lie or insane. An air started RS25 as a cheap option?
I fear that's very different from what you wrote.
The chap in question was a contractor, hired by the Air Force to help review bids - an external voice.
LockMart proposed a cheap rapid reaction launch space plane. Using an air started RS25. Long after Ares-1 acquired the J-2X….
Fair enough.
But I fail to see what that has to do with "Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida…." The SSME (RS-25) is very much *not* Russian.
It might well be that LockMart don't want to be in the space launch business for two reasons: they are part-owners of ULA, and their main space business is satellites - that is where the real money is. But neither do they want to ignore possibilities. If possible contracts come up, put in a proposal and see what happens.
As an aside, I have a great deal of time for ULA and Tory Bruno.
Tory gets it - his problem is abusive parents.
Both LockMart and Boeing having been swallowing launch development cash for decades while producing bullshit. At least Armadillo achieved actual liftoff….
The Russian engines thing was discovered by the late Senator McCain - he followed the trail of the Russian engines for Atlas and discovered they were being imported by a company in Florida with interesting ownership. That gave them an American designation and doubled the price. And had no employees.
The Russian engines thing was *always known*. It was not a secret, and it was always controversial. I also like the fact that McCain managed to get a date for the US not to buy any new RD-180 engines from Russia.
That date being 2022.
I can fully understand massive criticism of Boeing's space endeavours after the mess made of SLS and Starliner. But whilst much of LM's business can be criticised, its space business seems reasonably well run. And they're simply not in the space launch business (aside from the usual caveat of missiles).
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
Worth noting that 27% of Britons want our empire back, 38% of Leavers.
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
Worth noting that 27% of Britons want our empire back, 38% of Leavers.
What's missing isn't just 2 Unlimited, whoever they were.
It's also having a political genius as Labour leader.
If Labour had a Blair-like figure at its head, the Tories would be dead and buried. It is easy to forget now the huge advantage he got from the fawning coverage in most of the print, and virtually all the broadcast, media and how, for a while, he seemed to have a sixth sense of the public mood.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, Labour have Sir Keir Starmer, at least for the moment.
Not sure it’s fair to SKS to keep comparing him to this semi-mythical centrist god from another era. He was a political class act, Blair, but was he really such a colossus? Wouldn't Smith have won in 97 by over 100 probably? Think he likely would.
And both Blair and Smith depended on Kinnock having done a lot of the dragging of Labour back from madness.
Indeed so.
"in the grotesque madness of a Labour Council - a LABOUR council - scuttling around in taxis delivering redundancy notices to its own workers"
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
Given that our population pyramid is looking more like a population dadbod the idea of importing workers does not frighten or bother me. I don't want to see what happens when an increasingly small working-age population needs to support a large generation with complex needs and the political power to avoid any contribution.
On housing, frankly we need to smash the power of the NIMBYs. Completely gut the ability to object to new housing developments. Fuck your view, fuck your "village character", fuck your endless concern trolling. Pair that up with a legal requirement for developers to fund services (schools, GP surgeries, proper integrated community stuff) and a tax on land revaluation after usage change. Bang developer heads together and put a bullet in the NIMBYs, crash house prices into the ground and set up a relief fund funded the valuation tax to help out single home owners who suffer negative equity as a consequence.
Not that I expect any party to do something that might hurt the asset holding class.
This policy would be catastrophic. You just need to look at build costs to understand why. Build cost inflation is such that even building on green fields can quickly become unviable - that is even before you have tried to tax uplift. There would be no uplift to tax. A 100sqm house costs £200k to build (£2k/sqm) before the value of land, developer profit and planning gain is factored in to the equation. That is almost double what it was a decade ago but wage inflation has not risen in line with build cost inflation. Many families could not afford to buy a house even if it was sold to them at build cost.
The basic problem is with increases in the cost of materials, skilled labour and the imposition of new regulation that affects housebuilding.
That's very interesting. I didn't realise material costs had risen so much. What's behind it? Demand in East Asia?
Mega supply chain problems due to Covid.
However, there are definitely ways we can bring the costs of housing down, e.g. prefab/modular (to a much higher quality than it was back in the day).
If I had my way, I would pick a dozen sites across the UK and turn them into low construction cost pre-fab Levittowns, nimbys be damned. The only thing I would change is that I think we need to build higher density. The idea of everyone having a sprawling detached with garden and white picket fence just isn't practical for the UK.
These 'pre fab' solutions they serve the high end of the market and are more expensive than building with bricks. There are people in the UK who have built factories where houses can be made, but it is more expensive than the traditional form of construction.
You can buy a static caravan for about £1k / sqm. But this is not a permanent structure and does not comply with building regulations. It falls apart and becomes uninhabitable after 20 years. You would just be building shanty towns.
Can you point to an example of a prefab that would be of decent quality, please? Would be interested to see what it is like.
There's loads of it around. Countryside are a massive housebuilder and have a factory in the midlands where they build houses off site, the capacity is 3500 a year. They look no different to regular blockwork housing. The driver isn't price, it is pace and quality.
Correct; it's nothing new. And building timber frame in a factory never stopped in Scotland afaik eg Stuart Milne Group. Though I see that Stuart Milne himself is retiring.
Even down here Space4 have been doing offsite construction since 2000 in a large factory, and are now part of Persimmon.
Has there ever been a football club chairman that has destroyed his club’s ambition as totally as Stewart Milne?
The post David Murray banter years?
Glasgow Rangers never lost their ambition, even when in the lower leagues. If Aberdeen were to be relegated, they wouldn’t be promoted again for many years.
TBF ten yeats isn't much of a timescale for GR to have an ambition.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Too early to tell (to put it mildly) but could be possible, that victory of American anti-abortionists in repealing Roe v Wade, may prove as pyrrhic as that of American prohibitionists in passing 18th Amendment?
Movement to prohibit manufacture & sale of alcohol enjoyed great success in US in early decades of 20th century, to point that by WW1 virtually it was the law in just about every part of the United States where it was supported by majority opinion.
The urge to push it to the next level is what sounded the death knell for prohibition, starting with enactment of 21st amendment repealing 18th.
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
Ahem
As I predicted
Coz UK tourists will bog off to Turkey or Tunisia if they have to wait hours, and Spain loses several billion euro
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
Yep I'm sure she fancies it. My long shot is Michelle Obama though. Tipped her at 100s. Hope people remember that when it happens. In to 33s now.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
Just to prove it's not only Trumpites that are totally fucking delusional and have a messianic fervour for a ridiculous candidate.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Too early to tell (to put it mildly) but could be possible, that victory of American anti-abortionists in repealing Roe v Wade, may prove as pyrrhic as that of American prohibitionists in passing 18th Amendment?
Movement to prohibit manufacture & sale of alcohol enjoyed great success in US in early decades of 20th century, to point that by WW1 virtually it was the law in just about every part of the United States where it was supported by majority opinion.
The urge to push it to the next level is what sounded the death knell for prohibition, starting with enactment of 21st amendment repealing 18th.
Have a history of forensic pathology in NYC over that era in the bookcase. Quite eye-opening as to the changes in death rates on the imposition and then on the repeal of Prohibition. But of course toxic booze affected all social classes and sexes. Abortion, not so much.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
Dana Bash: Will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
'The real trick of McKinsey is being everywhere. If you are a corporate strategist, you can try to do the best you can with what your analysts tell you and your own data. But if you hire McKinsey you are sure their advice will be at least as good as the one they are giving your competitors. Of course they don’t make it obvious. They have internal shielding, privacy protection, the whole shebang. But you might get invited to be part of the benchmark which matters and their internal documentation pulls cleverly from all their cases. It’s subtle but hiring them is the closest you can get to a cartel without crossing the line. That’s why they are so expensive.'
Would any PBer care to elaborate?
That’s sounds like the “negative but positive “ pitch that McKinsey and the other big consultancies would like you to believe.
Personally I think their advice is a bit like AI. Sounds awesome and produces some funky art (PowerPoint) but when you give it a real problem like fully autonomous driving, it fails.
Their mind set seems to run on tram lines - all about outsourcing, turning your business into a hedge fund that owns IP. Despite that model having failed many, many times. Works for a bit - until you need new IP. And all your knowledge creators have been outsourced…
Thanks for the info. Have you any companies in mind when you talk of dropping the in house researchers and suffering for it?
Boeing are a classic of forgetting how to do their primary skill - creating new planes and manufacturing them.
Also Boeing (again) and LockMart for losing all their skills in creating new rockets and space vehicles.
To be fair to LockMart, they're not in the business of large rockets (deliberate bang rockets are a different matter). Their orbital rocket program went to ULA, who are still excellent (but expensive). And Tory Bruno totally owns Musk in the Twitter stakes.
Boeing's mucked up the SLS, and whilst the Orion capsule (made by LockMart) has had problems, it has been ready for yonks, whereas the SLS rocket has not been.
They’ve achieved monumental failure in return for billions. Their only hope is that the FAA has bought them enough time to salvage a tiny portion of their dignity.
How have LockMart achieved 'monumental failure' ?
What have they achieved since Delta Clipper, in space launch, apart from cancelled programs, after billions spent?
“It was tooooo hard….”
Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida….
Cry me a fucking river….
Though they did put in plea to fund their comic hypersonics program in the latest Topgun.
AIUI LockMart have not been in the space launch business for 15 years (leaving aside Trident), oddly due to Boeing's racketeering.
ULA is a very different company, being ably run by Tory Bruno.
(*) This was 18 years ago. I feel I should stop mentioning it, but it's so darned funny.
They have been regularly bidding on various launch program initiatives - mostly around cheap/quick launch. They spend the money and then announce “too hard”
A chap I know (slightly) actually pointed out at a presentation that they did for the Air Force, that their bid was either a lie or insane. An air started RS25 as a cheap option?
I fear that's very different from what you wrote.
The chap in question was a contractor, hired by the Air Force to help review bids - an external voice.
LockMart proposed a cheap rapid reaction launch space plane. Using an air started RS25. Long after Ares-1 acquired the J-2X….
Fair enough.
But I fail to see what that has to do with "Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida…." The SSME (RS-25) is very much *not* Russian.
It might well be that LockMart don't want to be in the space launch business for two reasons: they are part-owners of ULA, and their main space business is satellites - that is where the real money is. But neither do they want to ignore possibilities. If possible contracts come up, put in a proposal and see what happens.
As an aside, I have a great deal of time for ULA and Tory Bruno.
Tory gets it - his problem is abusive parents.
Both LockMart and Boeing having been swallowing launch development cash for decades while producing bullshit. At least Armadillo achieved actual liftoff….
The Russian engines thing was discovered by the late Senator McCain - he followed the trail of the Russian engines for Atlas and discovered they were being imported by a company in Florida with interesting ownership. That gave them an American designation and doubled the price. And had no employees.
The Russian engines thing was *always known*. It was not a secret, and it was always controversial. I also like the fact that McCain managed to get a date for the US not to buy any new RD-180 engines from Russia.
That date being 2022.
I can fully understand massive criticism of Boeing's space endeavours after the mess made of SLS and Starliner. But whilst much of LM's business can be criticised, its space business seems reasonably well run. And they're simply not in the space launch business (aside from the usual caveat of missiles).
McCain uncovered the full extent of the corruption. Basically, half the money on the import “doubling” was a payoff to various Russian officials. Which is why they never stopped supplying engines. Got to fuel the yachts somehow….
Where the American half of the money went is murkier. But seems to lead to companies in a certain aerospace conglomerate…
LM has spent the last couple of decades lying about their ability to implement quick launch. A series of contracts they failed to make good on - but swallowed the money. All the way back to claims they they knew secret shit from Copper Canyon - which turned out to be (multi lobbed tank) bullshit. Fuck ‘em.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
What's missing isn't just 2 Unlimited, whoever they were.
It's also having a political genius as Labour leader.
If Labour had a Blair-like figure at its head, the Tories would be dead and buried. It is easy to forget now the huge advantage he got from the fawning coverage in most of the print, and virtually all the broadcast, media and how, for a while, he seemed to have a sixth sense of the public mood.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, Labour have Sir Keir Starmer, at least for the moment.
Not sure it’s fair to SKS to keep comparing him to this semi-mythical centrist god from another era. He was a political class act, Blair, but was he really such a colossus? Wouldn't Smith have won in 97 by over 100 probably? Think he likely would.
And both Blair and Smith depended on Kinnock having done a lot of the dragging of Labour back from madness.
Indeed so.
"in the grotesque madness of a Labour Council - a LABOUR council - scuttling around in taxis delivering redundancy notices to its own workers"
Even if you don't think he should have become PM, a helluva speech that needed saying.
When the time comes, who will tell the Conservatives similar home truths?
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
I'm all for second chances, but the time has passed!
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
Dana Bash: Will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
What's missing isn't just 2 Unlimited, whoever they were.
It's also having a political genius as Labour leader.
If Labour had a Blair-like figure at its head, the Tories would be dead and buried. It is easy to forget now the huge advantage he got from the fawning coverage in most of the print, and virtually all the broadcast, media and how, for a while, he seemed to have a sixth sense of the public mood.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, Labour have Sir Keir Starmer, at least for the moment.
Not sure it’s fair to SKS to keep comparing him to this semi-mythical centrist god from another era. He was a political class act, Blair, but was he really such a colossus? Wouldn't Smith have won in 97 by over 100 probably? Think he likely would.
And both Blair and Smith depended on Kinnock having done a lot of the dragging of Labour back from madness.
Indeed so.
"in the grotesque madness of a Labour Council - a LABOUR council - scuttling around in taxis delivering redundancy notices to its own workers"
Even if you don't think he should have become PM, a helluva speech that needed saying.
When the time comes, who will tell the Conservatives similar home truths?
The time is now, if anyone among them had the courage.
🔵 The rebels think the Rwanda policy will be bogged down in courts for years 🔵 Instead of deporting migrants to Rwanda they want a deal done with Macron to send them to France 🔵 They also want to set up offshore processing centres across EU states
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
If we win next time, the raison d’etre of the SNP will no longer exist, and Sturgeon and her acolytes will no longer be in power. If we lose, Sturgeon and her acolytes will be kicked out. Although I want Scottish Independence, whatever the result, Sturgeon and her acolytes will be out of power, That’s why there won’t be a referendum any time soon. Better a big fish in a small pond than a tiddler on the world stage, unless she can spread her poison worldwide.
I’m assuming from the hatred of Sturgeon that you’re an Alba supporter. Genuine question, what do you think should be (and should have been) the strategy that would guarantee Indy ref II?
I am an SNP member, and have been since 1974. That doesn’t mean I agree with current SNP policy. However, local members no longer have any significant say in party policy.
In regards to strategy, to appeal to everyone living in Scotland, of all political persuasions, with the prospect of a better, fairer country for all, not just a Scottish amalgam of Corbynism, Green and Woke ideology. Alex Salmond ran a successful government after 2007, while not alienating the Scottish Tories, and did a good enough job to win an overall majority in 2011. Scotland is a fundamentally small c conservative country, hence Slab being less historically less left wing than UK Lab. Indyref 2 should be about whether Scots residents want to be in control of their own affairs. How we run Scotland after independence should be decided by Scots after independence. Detailed policies should not be the basis of the referendum. It should be about whether those living in Scotland want their country to be run from Scotland or elsewhere. So, fundamentally, do they class themselves as primarily Scots or British.
🔵 Under the plan those deemed as genuine refugees would be granted entry into the UK 🔵 The plan is born from the idea that “only a combination of deterrence and safe routes will solve the Channel crossings crisis” rather than one vs the other
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
Dana Bash: Will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
What's missing isn't just 2 Unlimited, whoever they were.
It's also having a political genius as Labour leader.
If Labour had a Blair-like figure at its head, the Tories would be dead and buried. It is easy to forget now the huge advantage he got from the fawning coverage in most of the print, and virtually all the broadcast, media and how, for a while, he seemed to have a sixth sense of the public mood.
Fortunately for the Conservatives, Labour have Sir Keir Starmer, at least for the moment.
Not sure it’s fair to SKS to keep comparing him to this semi-mythical centrist god from another era. He was a political class act, Blair, but was he really such a colossus? Wouldn't Smith have won in 97 by over 100 probably? Think he likely would.
And both Blair and Smith depended on Kinnock having done a lot of the dragging of Labour back from madness.
Indeed so.
"in the grotesque madness of a Labour Council - a LABOUR council - scuttling around in taxis delivering redundancy notices to its own workers"
Even if you don't think he should have become PM, a helluva speech that needed saying.
When the time comes, who will tell the Conservatives similar home truths?
Anyone can take on the Opposition. It's par for the course. Having the courage and ability to take on your own Party is a rare skill.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
Dana Bash: Will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
🔵 The rebels think the Rwanda policy will be bogged down in courts for years 🔵 Instead of deporting migrants to Rwanda they want a deal done with Macron to send them to France 🔵 They also want to set up offshore processing centres across EU states
With the agreement of the French they should fence-off an area in Kent and declare it part of France pro tem. It would be a safe haven for refugees who would be free to move back to France, but entry to the UK would be barred.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
I'm all for second chances, but the time has passed!
If the Democrats need Hillary Clinton, they are more fucked than @TSE’s stepmom.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Too early to tell (to put it mildly) but could be possible, that victory of American anti-abortionists in repealing Roe v Wade, may prove as pyrrhic as that of American prohibitionists in passing 18th Amendment?
Movement to prohibit manufacture & sale of alcohol enjoyed great success in US in early decades of 20th century, to point that by WW1 virtually it was the law in just about every part of the United States where it was supported by majority opinion.
The urge to push it to the next level is what sounded the death knell for prohibition, starting with enactment of 21st amendment repealing 18th.
Have a history of forensic pathology in NYC over that era in the bookcase. Quite eye-opening as to the changes in death rates on the imposition and then on the repeal of Prohibition. But of course toxic booze affected all social classes and sexes. Abortion, not so much.
"Abortion, not so much." ???
Certainly affects all social classes, and always has, albeit with differentials. Same with alcohol.
As for gender, you've got me there. Though males hardly unaffected, while direct impact to women depends to large extent on age.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
Dana Bash: Will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
You've got to understand, these anti abortion laws are not written in good faith.
They aren't about protecting the life of the unborn, they are about punishing women for having a uterus.
The exceptions are drafted to be deliberately ambiguous and to expose medical professionals to potential prosecution so as to dissuade any abortions from occuring no matter what the medical risk to the pregnant person.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Actually, I retract my remark. If the polls say that 19% of Americans are “always allow abortion” types then that’s what the poll says and I will believe it until given evidence otherwise
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
I'm all for second chances, but the time has passed!
In Hillary Clinton's case, would be THIRD chance. Seeing as how she snatched defeat from jaws of victory in 2008 as well as in 2016.
For IF she'd manged to NOT throw away the Democratic nomination (for example by ignoring existence of precinct caucus, at least outside of Iowa) pretty clear she'd have been elected POTUS, perhaps with a higher percentage of votes (popular and/or electoral) than Obama actually achieved.
You've got to understand, these anti abortion laws are not written in good faith.
They aren't about protecting the life of the unborn, they are about punishing women for having a uterus.
The exceptions are drafted to be deliberately ambiguous and to expose medical professionals to potential prosecution so as to dissuade any abortions from occuring no matter what the medical risk to the pregnant person.
They are about punishing women for having sex. Whether they wanted to or not.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
Dana Bash: Will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
Surely at that age there is serious risk to the mother?
The law exception only allows for a medical emergency with the immediate risk of death to the mother.
Barbarians.
From my brief perusals of state anti abortion laws Alabama is alrightish. Although it has the vague medical emergency clauses it does at least explicitly state that an ectopic pregnancy is not viable an completely exempt from any anti-abortion legislation.
Other states are no where near as clear. Many states don't mention ectopic pregnancies at all in their laws.
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
Right, but if you leave Schengen at a less sophisticated border post, they may not be able to read it? I mean, if they all have the ability to access Schengen electronic data instantaneously, they wouldn't need the physical stamps...
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
One would hope and expect so. In which case, why didn’t they just do this from the start? As it is obviously quicker and easier for all?
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
🔵 The rebels think the Rwanda policy will be bogged down in courts for years 🔵 Instead of deporting migrants to Rwanda they want a deal done with Macron to send them to France 🔵 They also want to set up offshore processing centres across EU states
A deal with France?!
We had this discussion and it was seen as impossible by 'right'-minded PBers. It may well be. But it seemed about the one legal way to reduce the crossings.
By the way, does anyone know why we do border control exit checks on the way out of the UK at St Pancras (just before the french border control), but we don't bother at airports? Seems like it should be everywhere or nowhere...
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
Dana Bash: Will the state of South Dakota going forward force a 10-year-old in that very same situation to have a baby?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
Right, but if you leave Schengen at a less sophisticated border post, they may not be able to read it? I mean, if they all have the ability to access Schengen electronic data instantaneously, they wouldn't need the physical stamps...
Is there any good reason not to give you the benefit of the doubt?
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
Right, but if you leave Schengen at a less sophisticated border post, they may not be able to read it? I mean, if they all have the ability to access Schengen electronic data instantaneously, they wouldn't need the physical stamps...
They seem to be relying on all these tourists entering and exiting at the same airport, with e-gates
But even then I wonder if they have the tech to track all the data
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Actually, I retract my remark. If the polls say that 19% of Americans are “always allow abortion” types then that’s what the poll says and I will believe it until given evidence otherwise
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
And by "always allow abortion" many respondents are applying making a political-legal judgement NOT an ethical-moral judgement.
That is, they may well have personal doubts, qualms, caveats re: abortion BUT are unwilling see them used as legal impediments and political cudgels by anti-abortion ideologues and politicos.
Would also caution re: argument that primary motivation of anti-abortion leaders & movement is anti-woman. Because the heart and soul of the movement is DOMINATED by women.
Despite fact that most of their sisters do NOT concur. However, fact that from Phyllis Schlafly women have been front and center in the public fight against abortion means that the argument that anti-abortion is inherently anti-women just doesn't wash with ambivalent, swing voters.
Andrew Rawnsley thinks that if there is a second Scotref the issue will go away and be settled for good even if the SNP lose. Do PB independence supporters agree?
The fanatics of the SNP won't give up merely because they keep losing. Like Farage would have done, or Adonis, they will keep going until they get the right result, because they consider their view on what constitutes independence to be far more important than anything else.
To misquote Tacitus, they would if necessary create a desolation and call it 'a sovereign state.'
Giving up would mean the SNP disbanding. It would be a terrible psychological crisis. So they will never give up (and nor should they, if it’s what they believe) and, whatever they say at any referendum (“that’s it for 50 years”) they will be back within 9 months to have another go, and with another reason to do it
Recall that immediately after their defeat in 2014 they were gunning for another vote (and that was before Brexit, so they had no “overwhelming reason”)
This is why the Government is right to resist now, If they allow a vote they establish the principle that the SNP must always be indulged
Aside from WilliamWallace1314@voteriggingbastards, who was gunning for a vote immediately after the defeat in 2014?
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
Hillary running again in 2024 as the Democrat candidate would be Trump's wet dream. Hillary got him elected in 2016 and Hillary could give him the second term in 2024 Biden denied him in 2020
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
Right, but if you leave Schengen at a less sophisticated border post, they may not be able to read it? I mean, if they all have the ability to access Schengen electronic data instantaneously, they wouldn't need the physical stamps...
They seem to be relying on all these tourists entering and exiting at the same airport, with e-gates
But even then I wonder if they have the tech to track all the data
This could get REALLY messy if they screw up
Is it possible, that PM & Co. could be counting on this, to help reduce the number of anti-Tory votes cast at next election by foreign-cheese-loving sovereignty-surrender monkeys?
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
Right, but if you leave Schengen at a less sophisticated border post, they may not be able to read it? I mean, if they all have the ability to access Schengen electronic data instantaneously, they wouldn't need the physical stamps...
Is there any good reason not to give you the benefit of the doubt?
Well, no.
I had a friend who, pre-brexit, flew from London to Gibraltar, walked over the border (passports were waved but not scanned), and left for London via Madrid after a week or so. The Madrid border agent was rather confused.
But someone here told me they stamp at Gib now, pending Gibraltar's entry into the Schengen area. In the intervening period going for dinner in La Linea on a British (and/or Gibraltarian?) passport would fill up ones passport with stamps pretty quickly.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Actually, I retract my remark. If the polls say that 19% of Americans are “always allow abortion” types then that’s what the poll says and I will believe it until given evidence otherwise
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
And by "always allow abortion" many respondents are applying making a political-legal judgement NOT an ethical-moral judgement.
That is, they may well have personal doubts, qualms, caveats re: abortion BUT are unwilling see them used as legal impediments and political cudgels by anti-abortion ideologues and politicos.
Would also caution re: argument that primary motivation of anti-abortion leaders & movement is anti-woman. Because the heart and soul of the movement is DOMINATED by women.
Despite fact that most of their sisters do NOT concur. However, fact that from Phyllis Schlafly women have been front and center in the public fight against abortion means that the argument that anti-abortion is inherently anti-women just doesn't wash with ambivalent, swing voters.
Agreed. I have read up, a tad, on the anti-abortion movement in the USA. They are not Taliban style misogynists. Generally they are very religious, quite sincere, and as you say: often female
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
One would hope and expect so. In which case, why didn’t they just do this from the start? As it is obviously quicker and easier for all?
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
Well that decision to force Brits to use the RoW inspector was undoubtedly political.
But with the e-gates, don't forget they're all made by different companies, and some of them are EEA only, and some can handle many countries, and almost certainly depend on bilateral information sharing agreements. In Switzerland, the e-gates were for EEA + Japan + Canada. In Rome, for EEA + UK + Canada + US.
The new machines in Portugal will also apparently handle UK too.
Isn't it the decision of the individual country, and doesn't it depend
You've got to understand, these anti abortion laws are not written in good faith.
They aren't about protecting the life of the unborn, they are about punishing women for having a uterus.
The exceptions are drafted to be deliberately ambiguous and to expose medical professionals to potential prosecution so as to dissuade any abortions from occuring no matter what the medical risk to the pregnant person.
For Roman Catholics and Protestant evangelicals they are very much written in good faith to protect the unborn. They are quite happy for women to use their uterus to produce good Roman Catholic or evangelical children
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
One would hope and expect so. In which case, why didn’t they just do this from the start? As it is obviously quicker and easier for all?
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
Well that decision to force Brits to use the RoW inspector was undoubtedly political.
But with the e-gates, don't forget they're all made by different companies, and some of them are EEA only, and some can handle many countries, and almost certainly depend on bilateral information sharing agreements. In Switzerland, the e-gates were for EEA + Japan + Canada. In Rome, for EEA + UK + Canada + US.
The new machines in Portugal will also apparently handle UK too.
Isn't it the decision of the individual country, and doesn't it depend
You've got to understand, these anti abortion laws are not written in good faith.
They aren't about protecting the life of the unborn, they are about punishing women for having a uterus.
The exceptions are drafted to be deliberately ambiguous and to expose medical professionals to potential prosecution so as to dissuade any abortions from occuring no matter what the medical risk to the pregnant person.
For Roman Catholics and Protestant evangelicals they are very much written in good faith to protect the unborn. They are quite happy for women to use their uterus to produce good Roman Catholic or evangelical children
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
Right, but if you leave Schengen at a less sophisticated border post, they may not be able to read it? I mean, if they all have the ability to access Schengen electronic data instantaneously, they wouldn't need the physical stamps...
That can also happen if you enter the US by plane, and then leave by road into Canada.
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
One would hope and expect so. In which case, why didn’t they just do this from the start? As it is obviously quicker and easier for all?
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
Well that decision to force Brits to use the RoW inspector was undoubtedly political.
But with the e-gates, don't forget they're all made by different companies, and some of them are EEA only, and some can handle many countries, and almost certainly depend on bilateral information sharing agreements. In Switzerland, the e-gates were for EEA + Japan + Canada. In Rome, for EEA + UK + Canada + US.
The new machines in Portugal will also apparently handle UK too.
Isn't it the decision of the individual country, and doesn't it depend
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
I flew into Rome on Friday, and Brits could use the e-gates. Last week when I went to Zurich, I was shuffled into a long Rest of World queue.
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
But how are they going to police the 90 day rule, without all Brits having their passports stamped?
This sounds like they are giving up
Because they record when you enter the country electronically? Like we do with our e-gates.
One would hope and expect so. In which case, why didn’t they just do this from the start? As it is obviously quicker and easier for all?
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
Well that decision to force Brits to use the RoW inspector was undoubtedly political.
But with the e-gates, don't forget they're all made by different companies, and some of them are EEA only, and some can handle many countries, and almost certainly depend on bilateral information sharing agreements. In Switzerland, the e-gates were for EEA + Japan + Canada. In Rome, for EEA + UK + Canada + US.
The new machines in Portugal will also apparently handle UK too.
Isn't it the decision of the individual country, and doesn't it depend
The e-passport isn't an international standard?
I don't think there's any international standard for e-gates. There's certainly a standard for reading the information off of your passport.
10 year old rape victim in Ohio that has banned abortion. It has taken literally 3 days for one of those "absurd emotive contrived examples which you are raising in bad faith" to actually happen
Given the realities of abortion, 0.1 milliseconds was a more reasonable estimate of how long such a case would take to occur. Because, sadly, this shit ain’t rare.
The argument between extremists ('Always, no limits' v 'never, no limits') is barbaric.
It is rarely noticed that English law bans and criminalises all abortions subject to narrow exceptions, and never ever permits the mother to be the person who makes the critical judgement and decision. There is no 'right to choose' in English law. Somehow we get by with this position which both sets of extremes seem to regard as an outrage.
I have known many feminists (and many more women), and I have rarely heard anyone argue for 'Always allow it'. I have heard many anti-abortionists say 'never allow it under any circumstances'). Although that might just be the ones I have met.
We had this debate the other day. There are some ‘always allow it’ extreme pro-choicers in the USA. Indeed polls suggest it could be as high as ~19% of Americans (tho like others here I doubt that, more like 5-10% maybe)
You rather mocked me for suggesting that 19% was too high, as I recall. But yes, agreed. It's a small minority position
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
Actually, I retract my remark. If the polls say that 19% of Americans are “always allow abortion” types then that’s what the poll says and I will believe it until given evidence otherwise
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
Just this one poll. Don't think it's the King James.
Soviet flags are flying in centre of Ukrainian city of Lysychansk reports NY Times.
Putin is basically a complete product of his upbringing under late Soviet regimes. He cannot imagine a different world to that he was born into.
Do Russians really want to be back in the USSR?
Flying of Soviet flags by Russian Putinists = Flying of Confederate flags by American Trumpists.
Different countries, same message.
Not quite surely? The soviet republic was at heart Marxist. Putin doesn't believe in Marx or any of his theories - he is an old fashioned Russian Empire imperialist who would rather be Chief of Security under Czar Nicholas VII.
Whereas Trumpsters do want to live under Wallace's theoretical view of the world.
Marxism has nothing to do with it. Strictly window-dressing & code for brute force.
By "Wallace's theoretical view of the world" you mean George Wallace?
The guy who ended his career depending on black votes? NOT what you'd call a theoretician of anything. Rather, practical populist like 45, Mad Vlad and PMBJBJ.
EDIT - Actually, George Wallace was a MUCH better politico AND human being than the Three Stooges referenced.
Comments
Anyway, when the got to the place, he went to the restroom while his wife order a couple beers. After a while, the place being busy (and NOT brightly lit) he went up to the bar to fetch another round.
Except the bartenders refused to serve him. Why? Turned out that they though he was a Greenlander.
Our formulation is abortion is illegal except ... define where it's ok.
As opposed to abortion is legal except ... define where it's not ok.
Broadly the same result in practice.
But I fail to see what that has to do with "Apart from running a company rebadging Russian rocket engines for a 100% markup, via a funky import company in Florida…." The SSME (RS-25) is very much *not* Russian.
It might well be that LockMart don't want to be in the space launch business for two reasons: they are part-owners of ULA, and their main space business is satellites - that is where the real money is. But neither do they want to ignore possibilities. If possible contracts come up, put in a proposal and see what happens.
As an aside, I have a great deal of time for ULA and Tory Bruno.
In our defence the dog was the mastermind of the whole plot.
I think next week or two, having gained the Donbass enough to sell to his people, he calls for ceasefire in order to rearm and resupply.
He might even settle for two or three years of ceasefire in order to wait for Trump.
By "Wallace's theoretical view of the world" you mean George Wallace?
The guy who ended his career depending on black votes? NOT what you'd call a theoretician of anything. Rather, practical populist like 45, Mad Vlad and PMBJBJ.
EDIT - Actually, George Wallace was a MUCH better politico AND human being than the Three Stooges referenced.
What's incredible is when they have the flat out balls to complain about Ukraine allegedly hitting some of their territory. Oh the horror!
https://qz.com/207365/more-than-half-of-russians-want-the-soviet-union-back/
The reasoning, I guess, is that they used to be a stable superpower with gradual improvement, and they've become a splintered mess dominated by oligarchs. Add a dash of nostalgia blurring memories of the dark sides, and you can see how they get there.
I've seen Ukrainians comment that a fair number of older people also see it as the good old days of order and unity. That's presumably partly why the pro-Russian party got nearly 20% of the vote before it was banned. The invasion will have cancelled most of that sentiment (which is another reason it was stupid), but not all.
One I don't share, btw, although if it truly were algakirk's grand mythical "battle of the extremes" I'd choose that one all day long over what some of these 'red states' in America are doing, a total ban
LostPassword has the absolutist pro choice view, I think. And maybe Farooq and Bart also. Possibly some other PBers too, not sure
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/spain-changes-passport-rules-for-brits-at-its-busiest-airports/
The Spanish authorities have decided to change the passport rules for British holidaymakers at some selected airports that are expected to be extremely busy this holiday season.
The Spanish airports that will implement the new passport rules for UK citizens include Alicante, Barcelona, Bilbao, Girona, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Madrid, Lanzarote, Malaga, Menorca, Mallorca, Valencia, Sevilla, Fuerteventura, and Tenerife Sur.
SLD were once very Home Rule but they've gone very right wing in the last couple of decades.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/foreign-interference-in-ukraine-s-election/
Basically, it's a mess. But it's getting better.
Capable of preforming up to current top-tier standards and then some of NFL, Premier League, NBA, East Wokeshire Trans-BIPOC Snooker Association, etc., etc.
AND at a cost greatly below current payroll for top professional talent.
BTW, speaking of top sports, guess who is the evil genius behind last week's defection of USC and UCLA to the Big-10 (bigger than that) from the Pac-12 (now back down to 10)?
Rupert Murdoch! Via Fox. Like the man said back in the day, follow the money . . .
Both LockMart and Boeing having been swallowing launch development cash for decades while producing bullshit. At least Armadillo achieved actual liftoff….
The Russian engines thing was discovered by the late Senator McCain - he followed the trail of the Russian engines for Atlas and discovered they were being imported by a company in Florida with interesting ownership. That gave them an American designation and doubled the price. And had no employees.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/uk-more-nostalgic-for-empire-than-other-ex-colonial-powers
That was surely tantamount to not accepting the vote and demanding a rerun.
Lanky need 13 off the final over. Looking unlikely now.
It is similar to the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which legalised male homosexual acts in England & Wales, but again with various compromises, like a higher age of consent, and it didn't cover Northern Ireland or Scotland. (This was in recognition of the inherently more conservative nature of Scottish culture...)
Genuine question, what do you think should be (and should have been) the strategy that would guarantee Indy ref II?
If it’s not about oppressing the French, it’s not proper empiring.
High full toss edged to the boundary.
Strange ending. No one knew they'd won.
13 off the last needed. Won with three balls to spare.
That date being 2022.
I can fully understand massive criticism of Boeing's space endeavours after the mess made of SLS and Starliner. But whilst much of LM's business can be criticised, its space business seems reasonably well run. And they're simply not in the space launch business (aside from the usual caveat of missiles).
Old people remember Stalin. There was food and there was order.
What do they want now?
Lots of food. Lots of order.
"in the grotesque madness of a Labour Council - a LABOUR council - scuttling around in taxis delivering redundancy notices to its own workers"
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3544103-now-more-than-ever-democrats-need-hillary-clinton/
Now more than ever, Democrats need Hillary Clinton
Whether or not party leaders will admit it, Democrats know that they need to move on from Biden if they want to stay in the White House in 2024 and — even more importantly — have a fighting chance at building a sufficient enough majority in Congress to advance any element of their agenda going forward, including, and especially, codifying abortion rights.
Based on her latest public statements, it’s clear that Clinton not only recognizes her position as a potential front-runner but also is setting up a process to gauge whether or not she should pursue the presidency once more.
Repositioning herself in the national spotlight, Clinton spoke this week at the Aspen Ideas Festival and bashed the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “the most arrogant misreading of history in law that you could ever find” and a decision that is “rolling the clock back on our civil rights, our human rights.”
Moreover, in a separate interview earlier in the week, Clinton refused to rule out a 2024 run.
Movement to prohibit manufacture & sale of alcohol enjoyed great success in US in early decades of 20th century, to point that by WW1 virtually it was the law in just about every part of the United States where it was supported by majority opinion.
The urge to push it to the next level is what sounded the death knell for prohibition, starting with enactment of 21st amendment repealing 18th.
As I predicted
Coz UK tourists will bog off to Turkey or Tunisia if they have to wait hours, and Spain loses several billion euro
Read more from @camillahmturner: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/03/tory-rebels-plotting-another-vote-oust-boris-johnson-month/
Can you imagine?
Kristi Noem: In South Dakota, the law today is that abortions are illegal except to save the life of the mother.
[that's a yes]
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1543588920339959810
Where the American half of the money went is murkier. But seems to lead to companies in a certain aerospace conglomerate…
LM has spent the last couple of decades lying about their ability to implement quick launch. A series of contracts they failed to make good on - but swallowed the money. All the way back to claims they they knew secret shit from Copper Canyon - which turned out to be (multi lobbed tank) bullshit. Fuck ‘em.
Night all.
This sounds like they are giving up
When the time comes, who will tell the Conservatives similar home truths?
🔵 Instead of deporting migrants to Rwanda they want a deal done with Macron to send them to France
🔵 They also want to set up offshore processing centres across EU states
In regards to strategy, to appeal to everyone living in Scotland, of all political persuasions, with the prospect of a better, fairer country for all, not just a Scottish amalgam of Corbynism, Green and Woke ideology. Alex Salmond ran a successful government after 2007, while not alienating the Scottish Tories, and did a good enough job to win an overall majority in 2011. Scotland is a fundamentally small c conservative country, hence Slab being less historically less left wing than UK Lab. Indyref 2 should be about whether Scots residents want to be in control of their own affairs. How we run Scotland after independence should be decided by Scots after independence. Detailed policies should not be the basis of the referendum. It should be about whether those living in Scotland want their country to be run from Scotland or elsewhere. So, fundamentally, do they class themselves as primarily Scots or British.
🔵 The plan is born from the idea that “only a combination of deterrence and safe routes will solve the Channel crossings crisis” rather than one vs the other
Certainly affects all social classes, and always has, albeit with differentials. Same with alcohol.
As for gender, you've got me there. Though males hardly unaffected, while direct impact to women depends to large extent on age.
They aren't about protecting the life of the unborn, they are about punishing women for having a uterus.
The exceptions are drafted to be deliberately ambiguous and to expose medical professionals to potential prosecution so as to dissuade any abortions from occuring no matter what the medical risk to the pregnant person.
It is very poor PB form to pick and choose which bits of a poll to believe, simply because you don’t like one element of the results
For IF she'd manged to NOT throw away the Democratic nomination (for example by ignoring existence of precinct caucus, at least outside of Iowa) pretty clear she'd have been elected POTUS, perhaps with a higher percentage of votes (popular and/or electoral) than Obama actually achieved.
Whether they wanted to or not.
Edited to include the full stop. Standards must be maintained.
Other states are no where near as clear. Many states don't mention ectopic pregnancies at all in their laws.
Suggests the decision to send Brits through the Rest of the World Gates was pointless spite, now overwhelmed by reality
We had this discussion and it was seen as impossible by 'right'-minded PBers. It may well be. But it seemed about the one legal way to reduce the crossings.
But even then I wonder if they have the tech to track all the data
This could get REALLY messy if they screw up
That is, they may well have personal doubts, qualms, caveats re: abortion BUT are unwilling see them used as legal impediments and political cudgels by anti-abortion ideologues and politicos.
Would also caution re: argument that primary motivation of anti-abortion leaders & movement is anti-woman. Because the heart and soul of the movement is DOMINATED by women.
Despite fact that most of their sisters do NOT concur. However, fact that from Phyllis Schlafly women have been front and center in the public fight against abortion means that the argument that anti-abortion is inherently anti-women just doesn't wash with ambivalent, swing voters.
I had a friend who, pre-brexit, flew from London to Gibraltar, walked over the border (passports were waved but not scanned), and left for London via Madrid after a week or so. The Madrid border agent was rather confused.
But someone here told me they stamp at Gib now, pending Gibraltar's entry into the Schengen area. In the intervening period going for dinner in La Linea on a British (and/or Gibraltarian?) passport would fill up ones passport with stamps pretty quickly.
But with the e-gates, don't forget they're all made by different companies, and some of them are EEA only, and some can handle many countries, and almost certainly depend on bilateral information sharing agreements. In Switzerland, the e-gates were for EEA + Japan + Canada. In Rome, for EEA + UK + Canada + US.
The new machines in Portugal will also apparently handle UK too.
Isn't it the decision of the individual country, and doesn't it depend
But what if their big and fast moves, eviscerating some constitutional rights and inflating others, are bound for collision?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/11/the-supreme-courts-conservatives-have-asserted-their-power