Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The fight for Nadine’s seat hots up even though there’s no vacancy – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    That wouldn't work. The demand is there, so someone will fill it. Eliminating a gang just makes life easier for another gang.

    Countries that are not wealthy will happily host UK processing centres. They will not become refugee camps, because claims would be vastly sped up - I see no reason for an assylum claim to take more than a week to be processed. If there are no assylum processing facilities in the UK, and no route to claiming assylum from the UK, non genuine claims will cease. Arrivals in the UK can be transported to a centre, have their claim processed in a week, genuine claimants come back to the UK and start their lives, and nothing is inhumane about it.

    Once this is clearly established, boat people will clearly have the intention of entering the UK illegally, with no plan to stay on a legal basis. They can be safely towed, with no idiots saying it's appalling treatment of refugees.
    The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression. There should be legal routes for these people to come here. Currently only those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan have any legal routes to come, and even these are extremely difficult to obtain.
    On a more positive note, we have successfully purchased a local flat to house an Afghan or Syrian refugee family, and our group expects them to arrive by the end of the year. We have been overwhelmed by the generosity of local people towards our group. While there is plenty of hostility towards refugees especially in the press, don't assume that it is universal. There are plenty of us who feel differently.
    There are legal routes, even if they're difficult.

    But anyone coming from France, France is not a country that people need refuge from - even if TSE suggests otherwise.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    I stopped using Facebook ages ago as the platform is utter shite now.

    Just went to check and I've got more things showing "suggested for you" from Pages I don't follow than posts from my actual Friends that I do. And that's not even including the ads. At many points scrolling down it shows "suggested message", ad, "suggested message".

    No thanks. If I was interested in those pages, I'd be following them, I'm not.
    Well, obviously if you haven't been on for "ages" they're giong to want to show you stuff that's new since you were last on. Those pages might not even have existed when you were last on...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,629
    edited August 24
    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,150
    DavidL said:

    Whilst I agree with your description the Festival in its various guises is an essential part of the Edinburgh economy so we just have to grin and bear it.

    But it does make life intolerable for people who have to live in (checks notes) Sweden...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,345
    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 697

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    On the basis that the "let them come" camp has had sway for most of the last 50 years and most of the outworkings have been bad, maybe we could try listening to what voters want for once.

    Worth noting that the average voter is perfectly happy to have Ukrainians over here, so it's not a blanket rejection.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880
    edited August 24
    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,925
    edited August 24
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Maybe but all those under 40s use Insta with an enthusiasm that the over 40s do not. FB also has the readies that it can buy a Snap or whatever becomes the preferred platform for Gen Alpha if it’s worried about losing eyeballs. Where both they and Twitter really soiled the bed was letting TikTok steal the short video market.

    Interesting to see what Musk ends up doing in this space, whether Twitter or startup. Sounds like he wants to do something much more like WeChat and integrate personal banking.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,925
    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Sunak has a bloody cheek quite frankly. He’s campaigning as though someone else has been Chancellor these past years. He’d be wise to take a period of quiet reflection.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,150
    How the Truss cabinet is shaping up - still lots of moving parts:

    - @KwasiKwarteng: nailed on for chancellor
    - @JamesCleverly: frontrunner for Foreign Sec
    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    https://www.ft.com/content/4761449a-6353-4bf2-aa45-dfeefbbed519

    Who else will be in Truss' government:

    - @Jacob_Rees_Mogg will have a senior role but *not* levelling up minister
    - @KemiBadenoch will make the cabinet
    - @TomTugendhat will be handed a senior minister role
    - @MPIainDS tipped for a return to govt

    https://www.ft.com/content/4761449a-6353-4bf2-aa45-dfeefbbed519
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117
    theProle said:

    DougSeal said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    You want to solve the boat crisis? Offer people legal routes to claim asylum. How many would apply? All the people on the boats plus probably double. How many would qualify? Doubtful would be a high percentage. We could have a slick well-resourced process to manage people who claim asylum. We don't.

    Your question on numbers pivots to the other problem.

    Problem 1: people coming in on little boats which are dangerous. We *could* do all kinds of things to stop the boats. Crack down on businesses using illegal labour. Off-shore processing of claims. Actual routes to make a claim. But we don't. Because the boats are a disguise for:
    Problem 2: too many English hate foreigners coming into their country taking over the schools and shops and simultaneously taking the jobs and benefits. There are no legal routes for Afghans to apply for asylum because England doesn't want the forrin.

    I'm happy to discuss a managed asylum policy with you. I live in a nation which openly wants migration. But as the Tory parts of England are awash with jingoism, we can't have that conversation. Because their proposed answer to your "how many"
    question is "zero".
    Jesus. This nationalistic essentialism that you and Dickson promote that the English are coded selfish in their DNA while the Celts are genetically pure simple NICER people isn’t half tiring and somewhat sinister.

    Attitudes to immigration and immigrants are constantly in flux depending on the economic and social conditions of the country in question. The USA had an open door immigration policy until the door started to be closed by the Asian Immigration (Page) Act in 1875. Restrictions would increase until after WW2 when the door began to open again to fill openings created by the strong economy in the 50s, similarly in the 90s there was huge immigration into the US, until the tide turned again over the last few years.

    A similar pattern can be seen in England. Immigration not a problem until it is and then not a problem again. Free movement was not an issue until the expansion of the EU roughly coincided with the GFC. If you think that Scotland has always been and always will be a bed of roses for immigration then go listen to the Rangers fans who sing about reversing Irish immigration to Scotland in less than polite terms.
    I'm not saying its an endless English problem or a trait of being English . So none of the things you say in your first paragraph. Its an issue with English voters *now*. Here and now a majority of them in particular parts of the country don't want migrants or even foreigners in general, say so very clearly and vote to express this.

    Again, the number of asylum seekers millions of voters want is zero. You can't discuss asylum policy with them because they don't want them here. So there can be no solution, until they are back in their jingoism box and the rest of the country can fix it.
    On the basis that the "let them come" camp has had sway for most of the last 50 years and most of the outworkings have been bad, maybe we could try listening to what voters want for once.

    Worth noting that the average voter is perfectly happy to have Ukrainians over here, so it's not a blanket rejection.
    It's not a rejection of genuine refugees at all. It's a rejection of economic migrants pretending to be refugees.

    How big of a problem that actually is, compared with how big it's perceived to be, is a different question.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,289
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Facebook has been a dead platform for me for at least four years now. I don't know anybody who actually uses it any more save for a) messenger (a few group chats) and b) posting classifieds for used furniture and the like.

    I'm a year shy of 40.

    Instagram is going the same way - most of my friends used to post daily, now it's the same two or three people posting with everyone else abandoning the platform.

    Years ago a friend of mine in the drinks industry told me that 90% of their revenue came from 10% of their customers. I have the feeling that social media is going the same way.

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    Social media has been repurposed for maximum addictiveness to a certain type of person (endless scrolling short videos of "addictive" content) but complete anathema to most of us with lives (*he says this, posting on PB).

    I just miss the early days where you could hang out with friends and it felt like an extension of your life into the digital space. Now it seems to be "influencer" content and the like and I just don't give a toss about how strangers are living their lives.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Did she really pass in a purple 996? I suspect it cheered the examiner after a life of beige Corsas.

    Yes, it is the only automatic I have. Cost £249/month to insure it for a learner driver...

    I am now fixing up a 2013 Mk.7 GTI with DSG for her. (ex-Copart 'bargain')
    I've had auto since 1994 and I wouldn't want to change. You really get used to it. However I do still miss aspects of manual even after all these years - in particular toying with the 'biting point' and the gear change from 2nd to 3rd, bottom left to top right, done with a flourish and plenty of wrist action. I sometimes try to inject my auto change from 'N' to 'D' with some of this drama but it's not the same.
    We recognise a drama queen when we see one.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Maybe but all those under 40s use Insta with an enthusiasm that the over 40s do not. FB also has the readies that it can buy a Snap or whatever becomes the preferred platform for Gen Alpha if it’s worried about losing eyeballs. Where both they and Twitter really soiled the bed was letting TikTok steal the short video market.

    Interesting to see what Musk ends up doing in this space, whether Twitter or startup. Sounds like he wants to do something much more like WeChat and integrate personal banking.
    The Twitter story has blown up in the US overnight, with their former security director, very well respected in the security community, sending a 200-page dossier to various three-letter authorities, containing serious allegations about a lack of willingness to address security issues - including bots, and employees thought to be foreign agents.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/23/tech/twitter-whistleblower-peiter-zatko-security/index.html
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,150
    kyf_100 said:

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    I went to a gig, a real live person playing guitar and signing, and sat next to a woman scrolling through facebook on her phone.

    Tragic
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,126

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    That wouldn't work. The demand is there, so someone will fill it. Eliminating a gang just makes life easier for another gang.

    Countries that are not wealthy will happily host UK processing centres. They will not become refugee camps, because claims would be vastly sped up - I see no reason for an assylum claim to take more than a week to be processed. If there are no assylum processing facilities in the UK, and no route to claiming assylum from the UK, non genuine claims will cease. Arrivals in the UK can be transported to a centre, have their claim processed in a week, genuine claimants come back to the UK and start their lives, and nothing is inhumane about it.

    Once this is clearly established, boat people will clearly have the intention of entering the UK illegally, with no plan to stay on a legal basis. They can be safely towed, with no idiots saying it's appalling treatment of refugees.
    The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression. There should be legal routes for these people to come here. Currently only those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan have any legal routes to come, and even these are extremely difficult to obtain.
    On a more positive note, we have successfully purchased a local flat to house an Afghan or Syrian refugee family, and our group expects them to arrive by the end of the year. We have been overwhelmed by the generosity of local people towards our group. While there is plenty of hostility towards refugees especially in the press, don't assume that it is universal. There are plenty of us who feel differently.
    There are legal routes, even if they're difficult.

    But anyone coming from France, France is not a country that people need refuge from - even if TSE suggests otherwise.
    The "asylum in first safe place" convention doesn't really work though. Eg we'd get very few refugees on that basis. They'd all get kettled into countries on the Med. There needs to be a new international agreement imo.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    Cyclefree said:

    Energy prices will do for the hospitality sector in a way that Covid didn't.

    A well known and very good pub in Kendal has just had its energy bill go up from £44,000 to £124,000 a year. One of our local pubs has received a 250% increase in their energy bill. It's not just them that suffer if they close but the whole ecosystem of other businesses that depend in part on their trade: the butchers, the wholesale suppliers, the brewers and wine merchants, the cleaning firms, pest control etc etc. All these ripple effects - the loss of business, jobs, rent, licensing fees, rates, tax etc - will be a big problem, one the Tory leadership contenders seem utterly oblivious to.

    Fuck em. We’ll drink lemonade. That’ll put hairs on our chests.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,629
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Maybe but all those under 40s use Insta with an enthusiasm that the over 40s do not. FB also has the readies that it can buy a Snap or whatever becomes the preferred platform for Gen Alpha if it’s worried about losing eyeballs. Where both they and Twitter really soiled the bed was letting TikTok steal the short video market.

    Interesting to see what Musk ends up doing in this space, whether Twitter or startup. Sounds like he wants to do something much more like WeChat and integrate personal banking.
    I wonder if Insta is in trouble as well. It is losing badly to TikTok. They really need to up their game as the competition from China will only get stiffer

    Facebook has done well to last as long as it has. But I can’t see it reversing this decline. They are masking it by getting low spend users in the developing world, but the crucial demographic - rich under 30s in the west and Asia - has gone and will not return. The grave beckons


    However as you say Meta has ten trillion dollars and isn’t going anywhere as a company. What will they do with their money?

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,289
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Maybe but all those under 40s use Insta with an enthusiasm that the over 40s do not. FB also has the readies that it can buy a Snap or whatever becomes the preferred platform for Gen Alpha if it’s worried about losing eyeballs. Where both they and Twitter really soiled the bed was letting TikTok steal the short video market.

    Interesting to see what Musk ends up doing in this space, whether Twitter or startup. Sounds like he wants to do something much more like WeChat and integrate personal banking.
    Nope, instagram is dying on its arse too.

    "60 percent of the posts on my newsfeed are from accounts I do not follow — yet there are accounts I do follow who post regularly and I don’t ever see their posts... It's gone from all my follows to every other follow and ad to as of today a three to two ratio of ads and promoted follows from the worst people and things"

    https://mashable.com/article/instagram-too-many-ads

    It says something when even hugely popular (!) influencers of the type Instagram is courting are saying they're sick of the platform.

    https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/kylie-jenner-s-tweet-wiped-1-3b-from-snapchat-now-she-s-after-instagram-20220726-p5b4p8.html
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,338

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    I stopped using Facebook ages ago as the platform is utter shite now.

    Just went to check and I've got more things showing "suggested for you" from Pages I don't follow than posts from my actual Friends that I do. And that's not even including the ads. At many points scrolling down it shows "suggested message", ad, "suggested message".

    No thanks. If I was interested in those pages, I'd be following them, I'm not.
    I might reactivate my FB account just to see what today’s fuss is about. Deactivation is about the only decent feature they have - you can switch it back on when needed but the rest of the time safely leave it dormant and ignored.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880
    Scott_xP said:

    kyf_100 said:

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    I went to a gig, a real live person playing guitar and signing, and sat next to a woman scrolling through facebook on her phone.

    Tragic
    A lot of artists have started banning phones from concerts and shows, to stop half the audience looking at a live event through their tiny phone screen, rather than enjoying what’s happening with their actual eyes.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,307
    edited August 24
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Sunak has a bloody cheek quite frankly. He’s campaigning as though someone else has been Chancellor these past years. He’d be wise to take a period of quiet reflection.
    Eh? Sunak has been campaigning *on* his record as Chancellor. He is always banging on about having introduced furlough and bounce back and what have you. It is Liz Truss who is running against the government she was, and still is, part of. And tbf, it worked for Boris!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,243
    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Truss doesn’t need to worry about Sunak (who?)

    She needs to worry about Johnson, Davey, Drakeford, Sturgeon, Major, May, Brown, Cameron and Blair.

    Especially Johnson.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,629
    Talking of energy prices I just had a chat with a florentine hotelier who told me his energy prices have doubled. So he is having to double his room rates. And this is true across the town. Budget rooms that were €50 are now €80-100

    And yet the city is completely full. “Never been so busy” is what he said

    This winter is going to be a battle between the money saved during lockdowns and surging prices everywhere
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,989
    edited August 24
    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Well then Sunak would have a better chance of becoming PM than if Truss won. He could stand for Leader of the Opposition if Starmer won the next general election saying 'I told you so' and become PM if he won the general election after, he could not stand for PM if Truss won the next general election and she would likely lead the Tories at the subsequent election too
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Facebook has been a dead platform for me for at least four years now. I don't know anybody who actually uses it any more save for a) messenger (a few group chats) and b) posting classifieds for used furniture and the like.

    I'm a year shy of 40.

    Instagram is going the same way - most of my friends used to post daily, now it's the same two or three people posting with everyone else abandoning the platform.

    Years ago a friend of mine in the drinks industry told me that 90% of their revenue came from 10% of their customers. I have the feeling that social media is going the same way.

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    Social media has been repurposed for maximum addictiveness to a certain type of person (endless scrolling short videos of "addictive" content) but complete anathema to most of us with lives (*he says this, posting on PB).

    I just miss the early days where you could hang out with friends and it felt like an extension of your life into the digital space. Now it seems to be "influencer" content and the like and I just don't give a toss about how strangers are living their lives.
    I rarely dwell on the news feed now, I still use FB a lot but almost exclusively for groups (some of which are fully public, and some of which are specific to clubs/activities I'm in).

    I can't remember the last time I posted something which wasn't a share of a bad joke. (I just checked my profile - two items of personal content in six months).
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,381
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    That wouldn't work. The demand is there, so someone will fill it. Eliminating a gang just makes life easier for another gang.

    Countries that are not wealthy will happily host UK processing centres. They will not become refugee camps, because claims would be vastly sped up - I see no reason for an assylum claim to take more than a week to be processed. If there are no assylum processing facilities in the UK, and no route to claiming assylum from the UK, non genuine claims will cease. Arrivals in the UK can be transported to a centre, have their claim processed in a week, genuine claimants come back to the UK and start their lives, and nothing is inhumane about it.

    Once this is clearly established, boat people will clearly have the intention of entering the UK illegally, with no plan to stay on a legal basis. They can be safely towed, with no idiots saying it's appalling treatment of refugees.
    The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression. There should be legal routes for these people to come here. Currently only those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan have any legal routes to come, and even these are extremely difficult to obtain.
    On a more positive note, we have successfully purchased a local flat to house an Afghan or Syrian refugee family, and our group expects them to arrive by the end of the year. We have been overwhelmed by the generosity of local people towards our group. While there is plenty of hostility towards refugees especially in the press, don't assume that it is universal. There are plenty of us who feel differently.
    PB liberal nitwits:


    “The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression”

    Reality:

    “Almost four in 10 Channel migrants are from Albania, where there has not been a conflict for a quarter of a century, a military intelligence report reveals.

    The document, marked “official sensitive”, shows that almost three times as many migrants arriving in the UK from France came from Albania than any other nation.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/four-10-channel-migrants-peaceful-albania/
    Reality:

    "Analysis using Home Office data and requests under freedom of information laws has concluded that 61% of migrants who travel by boat are likely to be allowed to stay after claiming asylum."

    "The Refugee Council analysed Channel crossings and asylum outcomes between January 2020 and June 2021. The charity found that 91% of people who travelled by boat across the Channel came from 10 countries where human rights abuses and persecution were common. These were Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Vietnam, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen."

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/most-people-who-risk-channel-boat-crossings-are-refugees-report

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,734
    edited August 24
    Leon said:

    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Maybe but all those under 40s use Insta with an enthusiasm that the over 40s do not. FB also has the readies that it can buy a Snap or whatever becomes the preferred platform for Gen Alpha if it’s worried about losing eyeballs. Where both they and Twitter really soiled the bed was letting TikTok steal the short video market.

    Interesting to see what Musk ends up doing in this space, whether Twitter or startup. Sounds like he wants to do something much more like WeChat and integrate personal banking.
    I wonder if Insta is in trouble as well. It is losing badly to TikTok. They really need to up their game as the competition from China will only get stiffer

    Facebook has done well to last as long as it has. But I can’t see it reversing this decline. They are masking it by getting low spend users in the developing world, but the crucial demographic - rich under 30s in the west and Asia - has gone and will not return. The grave beckons


    However as you say Meta has ten trillion dollars and isn’t going anywhere as a company. What will they do with their money?

    Meta has a market cap of 433 billion. Bytedance is worth around $250 billion, but it's private.

    Basically Facebook can't eat Tiktok in the same way it swallowed Whatsapp and insta.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,663
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Leon, Meta's current plan seems to be to make a bonfire of money, spending it on the unwanted and loathsome metaverse nonsense.
  • StarryStarry Posts: 97

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    Rats on the streets cannot be far behind and, for once, I don't mean the tourists.

    Rats have “taken over” and replaced mice as the main vermin in Edinburgh, a pest controller has said, as the strike by refuse workers dragged on into its sixth day https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rats-take-over-as-rubbish-piles-up-in-edinburgh-bin-strike-fc0gsvcz3?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1661276319
    The volume of rubbish created by the Festival (and I don't mean the street theatre) is immense. The problem is becoming genuinely acute.
    Do you think that the flyposting problem from the Fringe is under control? The council did try to clamp down some time back. Not that I like the temporary poster boards and hoardings, though - horribly untidy.
    Of course not. But it is nearly over for another year. Soon it will be just us and the rats fighting for seats in the cafes and bars once again.
    I propose that we just shut down the Festival. The whole thing. International, Fringe, Comedy, Film, Book, Science, Politics, etc etc etc ad infinitum.

    The whole shebang. Bunch of twats from beginning to end.
    Whilst I agree with your description the Festival in its various guises is an essential part of the Edinburgh economy so we just have to grin and bear it.
    It makes September in Edinburgh especially lovely.
    I don't know what people are complaining about. The Festival has some fantastic shows. I don't bother with most of them, but the science and similar talks are wonderful. Big fan of Oriental music too. Can't see that in too many places. Yeah, hate the crowds but far rather that than not be able to eat a weird falafel next to an opera singer in an outside art installation.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,307
    Facebook at one point had a not-quite duopoly with Google on online advertising. Is that still true? That is what will make or break it. Tik Tok might have the young'uns but are they buying anything?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,954

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    That wouldn't work. The demand is there, so someone will fill it. Eliminating a gang just makes life easier for another gang.

    Countries that are not wealthy will happily host UK processing centres. They will not become refugee camps, because claims would be vastly sped up - I see no reason for an assylum claim to take more than a week to be processed. If there are no assylum processing facilities in the UK, and no route to claiming assylum from the UK, non genuine claims will cease. Arrivals in the UK can be transported to a centre, have their claim processed in a week, genuine claimants come back to the UK and start their lives, and nothing is inhumane about it.

    Once this is clearly established, boat people will clearly have the intention of entering the UK illegally, with no plan to stay on a legal basis. They can be safely towed, with no idiots saying it's appalling treatment of refugees.
    The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression. There should be legal routes for these people to come here. Currently only those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan have any legal routes to come, and even these are extremely difficult to obtain.
    On a more positive note, we have successfully purchased a local flat to house an Afghan or Syrian refugee family, and our group expects them to arrive by the end of the year. We have been overwhelmed by the generosity of local people towards our group. While there is plenty of hostility towards refugees especially in the press, don't assume that it is universal. There are plenty of us who feel differently.
    PB liberal nitwits:


    “The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression”

    Reality:

    “Almost four in 10 Channel migrants are from Albania, where there has not been a conflict for a quarter of a century, a military intelligence report reveals.

    The document, marked “official sensitive”, shows that almost three times as many migrants arriving in the UK from France came from Albania than any other nation.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/four-10-channel-migrants-peaceful-albania/
    Reality:

    "Analysis using Home Office data and requests under freedom of information laws has concluded that 61% of migrants who travel by boat are likely to be allowed to stay after claiming asylum."

    "The Refugee Council analysed Channel crossings and asylum outcomes between January 2020 and June 2021. The charity found that 91% of people who travelled by boat across the Channel came from 10 countries where human rights abuses and persecution were common. These were Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Vietnam, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen."

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/most-people-who-risk-channel-boat-crossings-are-refugees-report
    Do you have an estimate of the total number of people globally who would currently qualify for asylum should they apply?
  • - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,817

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    Rwanda will deter people if they know they'll actually be sent there.

    If they're not, then it won't.

    The Australian system worked by saying everyone, regardless of circumstances, would go.
    And that's the point.

    If the Home Office really wanted a scheme like Rwanda to work, it would need to have capacity for up to a thousand people a day for as long as it takes. That period of time might not be long, but that's the initial capacity needed.

    What the UK bought was a lowish number of hundreds of places a year, becuase that's what Rwanda can absorb.

    Judging the scheme on its own terms, it has to be Go Big or Go Home, becuause otherwise people won't Stay Home. That's true whatever you think of the ethics, legality or democratic mandate for the scheme.

    Since it that isn't happening, it's a plan that can't work. The kindest explanation is that the Home Office are too dim to se it can't work. But we can't exclude the possibility that it's a gimmick (look we're doin' somethin') or a wedge (we wanted to do somethin', but the liberal judges banned it). And if that's what's happenin', it's a cruel trick.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,045
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Well then Sunak would have a better chance of becoming PM than if Truss won. He could stand for Leader of the Opposition if Starmer won the next general election saying 'I told you so' and become PM if he won the general election after, he could not stand for PM if Truss won the next general election and she would likely lead the Tories at the subsequent election too
    Your bitterness over Johnson knows no bounds
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,120
    Leon said:

    Talking of energy prices I just had a chat with a florentine hotelier who told me his energy prices have doubled. So he is having to double his room rates. And this is true across the town. Budget rooms that were €50 are now €80-100

    And yet the city is completely full. “Never been so busy” is what he said

    This winter is going to be a battle between the money saved during lockdowns and surging prices everywhere

    I do wonder if we can continue to focus solely on households rather than businesses. It seems that many will likely fold or stop trading. TSE said that his company might be closing the office and forcing people to work from home. But might that actually lead to more gas usage as everyone has the heating on at home rather than sharing the space in the office.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117

    Facebook at one point had a not-quite duopoly with Google on online advertising. Is that still true? That is what will make or break it. Tik Tok might have the young'uns but are they buying anything?

    TikTok is certainly advertising hard on YouTube, I get one of their ads on nearly every video I watch now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,519
    Cyclefree said:

    I see that Truss has refused to commit to having an independent ethics and standards advisor. Apparently she knows the difference between "right and wrong". (Though knowing such things and acting on them are two very different matters as, ahem, the ex-Mrs Field might venture to point out.)

    Presumably all those MPs who wrote such heart-rending resignation letters about why they could not possibly serve a moment longer under Boris because of his unethical behaviour and general attitude to ethics will now equally refuse to serve under Truss.

    It would make quite a good game to contrast what was said in those resignation letters with the self-serving guff they will come out with when given a job.

    Young Miss Cyclefree sorted in the end?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Sunak has a bloody cheek quite frankly.
    Truss thrashing him literally as well as metaphorically?
  • This seems like another cabinet of lightweights.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,734

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    Rwanda will deter people if they know they'll actually be sent there.

    If they're not, then it won't.

    The Australian system worked by saying everyone, regardless of circumstances, would go.
    And that's the point.

    If the Home Office really wanted a scheme like Rwanda to work, it would need to have capacity for up to a thousand people a day for as long as it takes. That period of time might not be long, but that's the initial capacity needed.

    What the UK bought was a lowish number of hundreds of places a year, becuase that's what Rwanda can absorb.

    Judging the scheme on its own terms, it has to be Go Big or Go Home, becuause otherwise people won't Stay Home. That's true whatever you think of the ethics, legality or democratic mandate for the scheme.

    Since it that isn't happening, it's a plan that can't work. The kindest explanation is that the Home Office are too dim to se it can't work. But we can't exclude the possibility that it's a gimmick (look we're doin' somethin') or a wedge (we wanted to do somethin', but the liberal judges banned it). And if that's what's happenin', it's a cruel trick.
    There's no point expanding the scheme to be several thousand before you've even got one person there. The Gov't knew it would be challenged in court, and they've got to break the back of the system that doesn't allow anyone to be deported first before they can take next steps.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:



    Did she really pass in a purple 996? I suspect it cheered the examiner after a life of beige Corsas.

    Yes, it is the only automatic I have. Cost £249/month to insure it for a learner driver...

    I am now fixing up a 2013 Mk.7 GTI with DSG for her. (ex-Copart 'bargain')
    I've had auto since 1994 and I wouldn't want to change. You really get used to it. However I do still miss aspects of manual even after all these years - in particular toying with the 'biting point' and the gear change from 2nd to 3rd, bottom left to top right, done with a flourish and plenty of wrist action. I sometimes try to inject my auto change from 'N' to 'D' with some of this drama but it's not the same.
    We recognise a drama queen when we see one.

    Err...
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,381

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    That wouldn't work. The demand is there, so someone will fill it. Eliminating a gang just makes life easier for another gang.

    Countries that are not wealthy will happily host UK processing centres. They will not become refugee camps, because claims would be vastly sped up - I see no reason for an assylum claim to take more than a week to be processed. If there are no assylum processing facilities in the UK, and no route to claiming assylum from the UK, non genuine claims will cease. Arrivals in the UK can be transported to a centre, have their claim processed in a week, genuine claimants come back to the UK and start their lives, and nothing is inhumane about it.

    Once this is clearly established, boat people will clearly have the intention of entering the UK illegally, with no plan to stay on a legal basis. They can be safely towed, with no idiots saying it's appalling treatment of refugees.
    The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression. There should be legal routes for these people to come here. Currently only those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan have any legal routes to come, and even these are extremely difficult to obtain.
    On a more positive note, we have successfully purchased a local flat to house an Afghan or Syrian refugee family, and our group expects them to arrive by the end of the year. We have been overwhelmed by the generosity of local people towards our group. While there is plenty of hostility towards refugees especially in the press, don't assume that it is universal. There are plenty of us who feel differently.
    PB liberal nitwits:


    “The majority of those arriving in boats are deemed genuine refugees and allowed to stay. They mostly come from a handful of countries experiencing conflict or severe political repression”

    Reality:

    “Almost four in 10 Channel migrants are from Albania, where there has not been a conflict for a quarter of a century, a military intelligence report reveals.

    The document, marked “official sensitive”, shows that almost three times as many migrants arriving in the UK from France came from Albania than any other nation.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/four-10-channel-migrants-peaceful-albania/
    Reality:

    "Analysis using Home Office data and requests under freedom of information laws has concluded that 61% of migrants who travel by boat are likely to be allowed to stay after claiming asylum."

    "The Refugee Council analysed Channel crossings and asylum outcomes between January 2020 and June 2021. The charity found that 91% of people who travelled by boat across the Channel came from 10 countries where human rights abuses and persecution were common. These were Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Vietnam, Kuwait, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen."

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/most-people-who-risk-channel-boat-crossings-are-refugees-report
    Do you have an estimate of the total number of people globally who would currently qualify for asylum should they apply?
    No but it will be a huge number. The vast majority of them will never leave their home country and most that do won't come here.
    But in my opinion we have a duty to help people in danger. Imagine how many could have been saved if the world had been more generous in opening borders to German and Austrian Jews in the 1930s. When I was growing up my parents had a friend who was an elderly Jewish lady from Vienna. She managed to come to Scotland as a teenager before the war and was grateful to the Scots for the rest of her life. But most of the rest of her family died in the camps. Her story had a powerful effect on me and I will always support the right of refugees to seek and be offered shelter from danger.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,045
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Sunak has a bloody cheek quite frankly.
    Truss thrashing him literally as well as metaphorically?
    Sunak will be in California enjoying his wealth in short time if he votes against Truss budget
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,519

    Leon said:

    Talking of energy prices I just had a chat with a florentine hotelier who told me his energy prices have doubled. So he is having to double his room rates. And this is true across the town. Budget rooms that were €50 are now €80-100

    And yet the city is completely full. “Never been so busy” is what he said

    This winter is going to be a battle between the money saved during lockdowns and surging prices everywhere

    I do wonder if we can continue to focus solely on households rather than businesses. It seems that many will likely fold or stop trading. TSE said that his company might be closing the office and forcing people to work from home. But might that actually lead to more gas usage as everyone has the heating on at home rather than sharing the space in the office.
    I advocated a business furlough system the other day to cover the post Christmas slack period by either part time or full time closure.

    Otherwise there will be few hospitality businesses standing by the summer. It would help with redistributing power to critical services too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Sunak has a bloody cheek quite frankly.
    Truss thrashing him literally as well as metaphorically?
    Sunak will be in California enjoying his wealth in short time if he votes against Truss budget
    And why not? None of us are going to have wealth for long at this rate. He should enjoy it while he can.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 24
    Ben Wallace is such a comedian:

    "We accept observations of Russian losses to be - if you combine deaths, injuries, desertions - over 80,000 of their armed forces. That’s 80,000 in six months compared to 15,000 they lost in a decade in Afghanistan. I think we are in a position where Russia is in a very fragile position."

    Er, mate, you gotta compare like with like. Leaving aside that it wasn't Russia in Afghanistan but the USSR - and Soviet forces included large numbers of Central Asian soldiers - Soviet "losses" in that conflict calculated as deaths plus injuries were closer to 70,000. Yes 70,000 is smaller than 80,000, but those who can marshal strong support for their points often don't need to tell lies. Most of the hooey about Russia being weak and about to collapse is propaganda for the war to be fought to the death of the last Ukrainian, because apparently a victory for Kiev is just around the corner, as also is Ukrainian NATO membership. Presumably Crimea will be settled by blue-and-yellow flag-carriers before Christmas, and US warships will arrive in Sevastopol on a friendly visit.

    How long will it take for the penny to drop that the Tory government is basically saying guns before heating and may soon say guns before food? I mean we'd all rather eat once every two days rather than have six sweaty Russians at the door with babies on their bayonets.

    image

    "Putin, who is notoriously difficult to access and is frequently hours late to meetings with other world leaders, apparently devoted two hours of his time to discuss world affairs with the Eton boys."

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,629
    edited August 24
    Driver said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Facebook has been a dead platform for me for at least four years now. I don't know anybody who actually uses it any more save for a) messenger (a few group chats) and b) posting classifieds for used furniture and the like.

    I'm a year shy of 40.

    Instagram is going the same way - most of my friends used to post daily, now it's the same two or three people posting with everyone else abandoning the platform.

    Years ago a friend of mine in the drinks industry told me that 90% of their revenue came from 10% of their customers. I have the feeling that social media is going the same way.

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    Social media has been repurposed for maximum addictiveness to a certain type of person (endless scrolling short videos of "addictive" content) but complete anathema to most of us with lives (*he says this, posting on PB).

    I just miss the early days where you could hang out with friends and it felt like an extension of your life into the digital space. Now it seems to be "influencer" content and the like and I just don't give a toss about how strangers are living their lives.
    I rarely dwell on the news feed now, I still use FB a lot but almost exclusively for groups (some of which are fully public, and some of which are specific to clubs/activities I'm in).

    I can't remember the last time I posted something which wasn't a share of a bad joke. (I just checked my profile - two items of personal content in six months).
    I feel slightly sorry for people still sharing personal stuff on FB. It has a forlorn quality now. A hint of desperation

    That’s fatal for any social medium

    It may end up an easy niche place for companies to cheaply advertise, and for older people to associate in groups. Or it may die entirely

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,345
    Leon said:

    Driver said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Facebook has been a dead platform for me for at least four years now. I don't know anybody who actually uses it any more save for a) messenger (a few group chats) and b) posting classifieds for used furniture and the like.

    I'm a year shy of 40.

    Instagram is going the same way - most of my friends used to post daily, now it's the same two or three people posting with everyone else abandoning the platform.

    Years ago a friend of mine in the drinks industry told me that 90% of their revenue came from 10% of their customers. I have the feeling that social media is going the same way.

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    Social media has been repurposed for maximum addictiveness to a certain type of person (endless scrolling short videos of "addictive" content) but complete anathema to most of us with lives (*he says this, posting on PB).

    I just miss the early days where you could hang out with friends and it felt like an extension of your life into the digital space. Now it seems to be "influencer" content and the like and I just don't give a toss about how strangers are living their lives.
    I rarely dwell on the news feed now, I still use FB a lot but almost exclusively for groups (some of which are fully public, and some of which are specific to clubs/activities I'm in).

    I can't remember the last time I posted something which wasn't a share of a bad joke. (I just checked my profile - two items of personal content in six months).
    I feel slightly sorry for people still sharing personal stuff on FB. It has a forlorn quality now. A hint of desperation

    That’s fatal for any social medium

    It may end up an easy niche place for companies to cheaply advertise, and for older people to associate in groups. Or it may die entirely

    You make it sound like Conservative Party Conference.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,455

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    There's a logic to it, it's the same politics but without the petty corruption.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,447

    This seems like another cabinet of lightweights.

    Not sure that turning to someone who is thought of as a heavyweight would be beneficial (say Gove). Firstly there's the liklihood that these rather static years will have become an ingrained theme, and secondly if the Tories are going to turn matters around in the next two years they need quite a lot of fresh air. So personally I think the likes of Tugendhat and Badenoch should be more prominent than suggested, and I'd not give Braverman a spot.

    Chancellor is the key role. Kwarteng seems a reasonable choice, but whoever it is is going to have to be quite bold.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,345

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    Say "Yes Prime Minister?"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,519
    Dynamo said:

    Ben Wallace is such a comedian:

    "We accept observations of Russian losses to be - if you combine deaths, injuries, desertions - over 80,000 of their armed forces. That’s 80,000 in six months compared to 15,000 they lost in a decade in Afghanistan. I think we are in a position where Russia is in a very fragile position."

    Er, mate, you gotta compare like with like. Leaving aside that it wasn't Russia in Afghanistan but the USSR - and Soviet forces included large numbers of Central Asian soldiers - Soviet "losses" in that conflict calculated as deaths plus injuries were closer to 70,000. Yes 70,000 is smaller than 80,000, but those who can marshal strong support for their points often don't need to tell lies. Most of the hooey about Russia being weak and about to collapse is propaganda for the war to be fought to the death of the last Ukrainian, because apparently a victory for Kiev is just around the corner, as also is Ukrainian NATO membership. Presumably Crimea will be settled by blue-and-yellow flag-carriers before Christmas, and US warships will arrive in Sevastopol on a friendly visit.

    How long will it take for the penny to drop that the Tory government is basically saying guns before heating and may soon say guns before food? I mean we'd all rather eat once every two days rather than have six sweaty Russians at the door with babies on their bayonets.

    image

    "Putin, who is notoriously difficult to access and is frequently hours late to meetings with other world leaders, apparently devoted two hours of his time to discuss world affairs with the Eton boys."

    Sure, the war isn't over yet, but Russias losses of trained men and equipment mount up daily. They are not easily replaced. The Russians fleeing Crimea clearly don't have much faith in what is being said on their news media.

  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 24
    Leon said:

    Driver said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Facebook has been a dead platform for me for at least four years now. I don't know anybody who actually uses it any more save for a) messenger (a few group chats) and b) posting classifieds for used furniture and the like.

    I'm a year shy of 40.

    Instagram is going the same way - most of my friends used to post daily, now it's the same two or three people posting with everyone else abandoning the platform.

    Years ago a friend of mine in the drinks industry told me that 90% of their revenue came from 10% of their customers. I have the feeling that social media is going the same way.

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    Social media has been repurposed for maximum addictiveness to a certain type of person (endless scrolling short videos of "addictive" content) but complete anathema to most of us with lives (*he says this, posting on PB).

    I just miss the early days where you could hang out with friends and it felt like an extension of your life into the digital space. Now it seems to be "influencer" content and the like and I just don't give a toss about how strangers are living their lives.
    I rarely dwell on the news feed now, I still use FB a lot but almost exclusively for groups (some of which are fully public, and some of which are specific to clubs/activities I'm in).

    I can't remember the last time I posted something which wasn't a share of a bad joke. (I just checked my profile - two items of personal content in six months).
    I feel slightly sorry for people still sharing personal stuff on FB. It has a forlorn quality now. A hint of desperation

    That’s fatal for any social medium

    It may end up an easy niche place for companies to cheaply advertise, and for older people to associate in groups. Or it may die entirely

    Anyone who ever posted personal stuff on FB has sh*t for brains.

    It's like keeping loads of personal files with Google or Apple.

    How hard is it to set up a mailing list that doesn't involve any advertising companies? It's as easy as piss. Same goes for keeping files of one's letters, photos, and other personal documents.

    FB and Twitter are like toilet walls. I wouldn't scribble a bad joke on a toilet wall; I wouldn't post it on an advertising company's website either, however "easy" and "convenient" it might be to drop that low.

    Richard Stallman was right: "user" is too polite a word for those on FB. "Used" is the word.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,131

    This seems like another cabinet of lightweights.

    Too kind.

    A Cabinet of Deplorables would be more accurate.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,131

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,703
    Sandpit said:

    Mustn’t feed the troll.
    Mustn’t feed the troll.
    Mustn’t feed the troll…

    That's not a goat to person.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117
    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    Driver said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Facebook has been a dead platform for me for at least four years now. I don't know anybody who actually uses it any more save for a) messenger (a few group chats) and b) posting classifieds for used furniture and the like.

    I'm a year shy of 40.

    Instagram is going the same way - most of my friends used to post daily, now it's the same two or three people posting with everyone else abandoning the platform.

    Years ago a friend of mine in the drinks industry told me that 90% of their revenue came from 10% of their customers. I have the feeling that social media is going the same way.

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    Social media has been repurposed for maximum addictiveness to a certain type of person (endless scrolling short videos of "addictive" content) but complete anathema to most of us with lives (*he says this, posting on PB).

    I just miss the early days where you could hang out with friends and it felt like an extension of your life into the digital space. Now it seems to be "influencer" content and the like and I just don't give a toss about how strangers are living their lives.
    I rarely dwell on the news feed now, I still use FB a lot but almost exclusively for groups (some of which are fully public, and some of which are specific to clubs/activities I'm in).

    I can't remember the last time I posted something which wasn't a share of a bad joke. (I just checked my profile - two items of personal content in six months).
    I feel slightly sorry for people still sharing personal stuff on FB. It has a forlorn quality now. A hint of desperation

    That’s fatal for any social medium

    It may end up an easy niche place for companies to cheaply advertise, and for older people to associate in groups. Or it may die entirely

    Anyone who ever posted personal stuff on FB has sh*t for brains.

    It's like keeping loads of personal files with Google or Apple.

    How hard is it to set up a mailing list that doesn't involve any advertising companies? It's as easy as piss. Same goes for keeping files of one's letters, photos, and other personal documents.

    FB and Twitter are like toilet walls. I wouldn't scribble a bad joke on a toilet wall; I wouldn't post it on an advertising company's website either, however "easy" and "convenient" it might be to drop that low.
    You use VK instead, right?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,629

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    Rwanda will deter people if they know they'll actually be sent there.

    If they're not, then it won't.

    The Australian system worked by saying everyone, regardless of circumstances, would go.
    And that's the point.

    If the Home Office really wanted a scheme like Rwanda to work, it would need to have capacity for up to a thousand people a day for as long as it takes. That period of time might not be long, but that's the initial capacity needed.

    What the UK bought was a lowish number of hundreds of places a year, becuase that's what Rwanda can absorb.

    Judging the scheme on its own terms, it has to be Go Big or Go Home, becuause otherwise people won't Stay Home. That's true whatever you think of the ethics, legality or democratic mandate for the scheme.

    Since it that isn't happening, it's a plan that can't work. The kindest explanation is that the Home Office are too dim to se it can't work. But we can't exclude the possibility that it's a gimmick (look we're doin' somethin') or a wedge (we wanted to do somethin', but the liberal judges banned it). And if that's what's happenin', it's a cruel trick.
    I agree with this

    I was fully supportive of Rwanda as a concept but from the start I was highly skeptical that the government had the will, spine or energy to make it
    work: which means flying EVERYONE to Rwanda for weeks or even months

    And so it is. If, as you say, they knew this all along then it is indeed cruel as well as lame

    Nonetheless we will have to address this dilemma at some point. The migrants will not stop, they will grow in number. Either we say “if you can make it here you stay” - which will mean millions, transforming the UK in a way we cannot imagine - or we will have to get tough

    And so it will come back to the same brutal choice. Physically push the boats back and risk drowning people - or something like Rwanda

    There are no other alternatives. All this stuff about legal routes and “processing centres” is so much piffle for people who can’t or won’t address reality
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,094
    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    Starmer is going to have one hell of a mess to clear up after 2024.

  • TazTaz Posts: 6,207
    UK Imports of fuel from Russia collapse by 97% and we imported no fuels at all in June.

    We may be cold, we may be about to become poor, but we are virtuous and the govt are offering nothing to help.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-imported-no-fuels-from-russia-for-first-time-on-record-in-june/ar-AA11232b?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=06c9551deee44641a22970b2bfda691e
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited August 24
    Driver said:

    Dynamo said:

    Leon said:

    Driver said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Facebook has been a dead platform for me for at least four years now. I don't know anybody who actually uses it any more save for a) messenger (a few group chats) and b) posting classifieds for used furniture and the like.

    I'm a year shy of 40.

    Instagram is going the same way - most of my friends used to post daily, now it's the same two or three people posting with everyone else abandoning the platform.

    Years ago a friend of mine in the drinks industry told me that 90% of their revenue came from 10% of their customers. I have the feeling that social media is going the same way.

    They're not interested in people who use their services in a lukewarm way, they only want to get the 10% or so of addicts hooked who use their services for hours a day.

    I have one or two friends who will literally forward me about ten of these short videos they've found on Facebook/instagram every day. Despite me asking them to stop. Repeatedly. So I know they're hooked.

    Social media has been repurposed for maximum addictiveness to a certain type of person (endless scrolling short videos of "addictive" content) but complete anathema to most of us with lives (*he says this, posting on PB).

    I just miss the early days where you could hang out with friends and it felt like an extension of your life into the digital space. Now it seems to be "influencer" content and the like and I just don't give a toss about how strangers are living their lives.
    I rarely dwell on the news feed now, I still use FB a lot but almost exclusively for groups (some of which are fully public, and some of which are specific to clubs/activities I'm in).

    I can't remember the last time I posted something which wasn't a share of a bad joke. (I just checked my profile - two items of personal content in six months).
    I feel slightly sorry for people still sharing personal stuff on FB. It has a forlorn quality now. A hint of desperation

    That’s fatal for any social medium

    It may end up an easy niche place for companies to cheaply advertise, and for older people to associate in groups. Or it may die entirely

    Anyone who ever posted personal stuff on FB has sh*t for brains.

    It's like keeping loads of personal files with Google or Apple.

    How hard is it to set up a mailing list that doesn't involve any advertising companies? It's as easy as piss. Same goes for keeping files of one's letters, photos, and other personal documents.

    FB and Twitter are like toilet walls. I wouldn't scribble a bad joke on a toilet wall; I wouldn't post it on an advertising company's website either, however "easy" and "convenient" it might be to drop that low.
    You use VK instead, right?
    Yes, comrade, once I've wiped the snow off my boots after I get home to my gender-bender council flat from Aldi.

    After all, we're all e-smackheads now. It's only trolls who say they aren't.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,131
    Omnium said:

    This seems like another cabinet of lightweights.

    Not sure that turning to someone who is thought of as a heavyweight would be beneficial (say Gove). Firstly there's the liklihood that these rather static years will have become an ingrained theme, and secondly if the Tories are going to turn matters around in the next two years they need quite a lot of fresh air. So personally I think the likes of Tugendhat and Badenoch should be more prominent than suggested, and I'd not give Braverman a spot.

    Chancellor is the key role. Kwarteng seems a reasonable choice, but whoever it is is going to have to be quite bold.
    If I were ambitious like Badenoch and Tugendhat I'd be inclined to sit this government out rather than be associated with what will likely be a shitshow followed by defeat. I'd spend time really thinking through what I'd want to do analysing the issues the country faces and coming up with a version of Conservatism which is attractive and relevant to today rather than a pale copy of a government in power before most voters were born. It's not as if Labour is brimming over with good ideas. If Labour is in power after the election, it could quickly find itself in trouble and vulnerable to an invigorated opposition under a genuinely fresh face.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177
    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,817
    Cyclefree said:

    This seems like another cabinet of lightweights.

    Too kind.

    A Cabinet of Deplorables would be more accurate.
    Trouble is, every time we have had a new leader recently, they feed far too many of the old Cabinet to the piranhas. We're consuming ministers faster than we can raise new ones.

    Now, we're left with the ones who were too bad for even Bozza to give them jobs.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,131
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I see that Truss has refused to commit to having an independent ethics and standards advisor. Apparently she knows the difference between "right and wrong". (Though knowing such things and acting on them are two very different matters as, ahem, the ex-Mrs Field might venture to point out.)

    Presumably all those MPs who wrote such heart-rending resignation letters about why they could not possibly serve a moment longer under Boris because of his unethical behaviour and general attitude to ethics will now equally refuse to serve under Truss.

    It would make quite a good game to contrast what was said in those resignation letters with the self-serving guff they will come out with when given a job.

    Young Miss Cyclefree sorted in the end?
    Have yet to hear. She was working late last night and out again early this morning.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,094

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    I see Sunak has twice refused to say whether he'll vote for a Truss Budget.
    Hmm.

    Sunak and his mob of supporters, are increasingly coming across as preferring to see Starmer as PM, than Truss.

    I hope I’m wrong.
    Sunak has a bloody cheek quite frankly.
    Truss thrashing him literally as well as metaphorically?
    Sunak will be in California enjoying his wealth in short time if he votes against Truss budget
    He can just arrange to be away on day of the vote, in the style of one Boris Johnson.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,925
    Dynamo said:

    Ben Wallace is such a comedian:

    "We accept observations of Russian losses to be - if you combine deaths, injuries, desertions - over 80,000 of their armed forces. That’s 80,000 in six months compared to 15,000 they lost in a decade in Afghanistan. I think we are in a position where Russia is in a very fragile position."

    Er, mate, you gotta compare like with like. Leaving aside that it wasn't Russia in Afghanistan but the USSR - and Soviet forces included large numbers of Central Asian soldiers - Soviet "losses" in that conflict calculated as deaths plus injuries were closer to 70,000. Yes 70,000 is smaller than 80,000, but those who can marshal strong support for their points often don't need to tell lies. Most of the hooey about Russia being weak and about to collapse is propaganda for the war to be fought to the death of the last Ukrainian, because apparently a victory for Kiev is just around the corner, as also is Ukrainian NATO membership. Presumably Crimea will be settled by blue-and-yellow flag-carriers before Christmas, and US warships will arrive in Sevastopol on a friendly visit.

    How long will it take for the penny to drop that the Tory government is basically saying guns before heating and may soon say guns before food? I mean we'd all rather eat once every two days rather than have six sweaty Russians at the door with babies on their bayonets.

    image

    "Putin, who is notoriously difficult to access and is frequently hours late to meetings with other world leaders, apparently devoted two hours of his time to discuss world affairs with the Eton boys."

    It fills my heart with unbridled joy to see you so unhinged, especially on today of all days.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,629
    Great



    “A drought in China is threatening food production, prompting the government to order local authorities to take all available measures to ensure crops survive the hottest summer on record.

    On Tuesday, four government departments issued an urgent joint emergency notice, warning that the autumn harvest was under “severe threat”. It urged local authorities to ensure “every unit of water … be used carefully”, and called for methods included staggered irrigation, the diversion of new water sources, and cloud seeding.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/china-issues-alert-drought-heatwave-put-crops-at-risk
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Mmmm ..... So, lemme see, Facebook's decline set in shortly after the appointment of (Sir) Nicholas William Peter Clegg.

    The LibDems can tell Facebook what happens next. Cringe and embarrassment is followed by dire catastrophe.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,447
    Cyclefree said:

    Omnium said:

    This seems like another cabinet of lightweights.

    Not sure that turning to someone who is thought of as a heavyweight would be beneficial (say Gove). Firstly there's the liklihood that these rather static years will have become an ingrained theme, and secondly if the Tories are going to turn matters around in the next two years they need quite a lot of fresh air. So personally I think the likes of Tugendhat and Badenoch should be more prominent than suggested, and I'd not give Braverman a spot.

    Chancellor is the key role. Kwarteng seems a reasonable choice, but whoever it is is going to have to be quite bold.
    If I were ambitious like Badenoch and Tugendhat I'd be inclined to sit this government out rather than be associated with what will likely be a shitshow followed by defeat. I'd spend time really thinking through what I'd want to do analysing the issues the country faces and coming up with a version of Conservatism which is attractive and relevant to today rather than a pale copy of a government in power before most voters were born. It's not as if Labour is brimming over with good ideas. If Labour is in power after the election, it could quickly find itself in trouble and vulnerable to an invigorated opposition under a genuinely fresh face.
    Undoubtedly that's an option. Certainly Labour could find themselves in a really awkward position if they need SNP help to form a government.

    I think it's far more likely that aspiring Tories would want to get direct experience of the big offices of state though.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,977
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stereodog said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Six months today, since this damn war started.

    Today is Independence Day in Ukraine.
    Indeed, something that’s not a co-incidence.

    Ukraine, of course, will remind everyone today that this war actually started eight years ago.

    I just hope it passes in relative peace today. I can’t afford any more windows.
    I’ve heard it argued that the Third World War started eight years ago. And nobody noticed.

    Hope it’s not Hundred Years' War II.

    Incidentally, Scotland and England (with Ireland & Wales) were on opposing sides in Hundred Years' War I. The Scottish side won.
    If this is WWIII I almost hope it is a hundred year war. It’ll be a 2 hour war that dooms humanity.
    Indeed. But if it’s nuclear holocaust that worries you (and it should), I’d be more concerned by hillbillies voting for Gael-offspring Trump.
    Slightly eccentric jump from claiming the Scots won the Hundred Years War to claiming World War III will be started by a Scotsman.
    No eccentricity required.

    Scots won Hundred Years' War I. Slam dunk.

    Third World War (puhrleese no shite Yankee “WWIII” nonsense) started by a son of a Gael. Perfectly feasible. Unfortunately.
    Before the Act of Union the Scots were often in league with the French against England, not just in the Hundred Years War but James IVths alliance with Louis XII leading to Flodden Field and then Mary
    Queen of Scots. Then of course the Jacobite Rebellions too with French backing
    Jacobite Risings. No historian calls them Rebellions. Despite which dynasty won.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,131
    I have never used Facebook. But I was recently contacted by someone I knew back in the 80's before they went home to Australia. We kept in touch for a while through ..... gasp! .... letters. And they recently found one of mine and contacted me through my work website. One advantage of having an unusual name I guess.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,925
    Leon said:

    Great



    “A drought in China is threatening food production, prompting the government to order local authorities to take all available measures to ensure crops survive the hottest summer on record.

    On Tuesday, four government departments issued an urgent joint emergency notice, warning that the autumn harvest was under “severe threat”. It urged local authorities to ensure “every unit of water … be used carefully”, and called for methods included staggered irrigation, the diversion of new water sources, and cloud seeding.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/china-issues-alert-drought-heatwave-put-crops-at-risk

    This is a big problem and not just for food. The Yangtze is a key industrial highway for raw materials and finished goods, and has hydropower stations with a total of 190Gb of nameplate capacity. That’s without the housing crash and economically destructive zero covid policies of Xi. It’s stagflation write large - simultaneously a massive drag on global growth with supply induced inflation.

  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Great



    “A drought in China is threatening food production, prompting the government to order local authorities to take all available measures to ensure crops survive the hottest summer on record.

    On Tuesday, four government departments issued an urgent joint emergency notice, warning that the autumn harvest was under “severe threat”. It urged local authorities to ensure “every unit of water … be used carefully”, and called for methods included staggered irrigation, the diversion of new water sources, and cloud seeding.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/china-issues-alert-drought-heatwave-put-crops-at-risk

    This is a big problem and not just for food. The Yangtze is a key industrial highway for raw materials and finished goods, and has hydropower stations with a total of 190Gb of nameplate capacity. That’s without the housing crash and economically destructive zero covid policies of Xi. It’s stagflation write large - simultaneously a massive drag on global growth with supply induced inflation.

    What's so good about global growth?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,289

    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    Mmmm ..... So, lemme see, Facebook's decline set in shortly after the appointment of (Sir) Nicholas William Peter Clegg.

    The LibDems can tell Facebook what happens next. Cringe and embarrassment is followed by dire catastrophe.
    The problem with the Facebook properties is there's absolutely no innovation. They just look at what's popular at the moment (e.g. tiktok) and copy its exact features.

    The trouble is, the people who want to be on tiktok are already on tiktok. So when they try to turn instagram or facebook into tiktok, they alienate their already dwindling customer base.

    Long term, Facebook have bet the farm on us all existing in the "metaverse" within the next decade, a nebulous term that most people understand as a sort of "wear a VR headset all day, visit branded websites in a virtual corporate dystopia" - so you can see why most people are sceptical.

    As I said downthread, I liked social media when it was about bringing me closer to friends and family (especially ones who live far away). Not influencers, not corporations, not endless memes, videos and ads.

    I don't think there's any social media platform really offering genuine and meaningful connections these days.

    I get more out of posting here, or on a few niche subreddits, and a couple of other forums related to my interests. The thing that unites all the places I hang out online is they all feel like they have a distinct community.

    PB is very much like a comfy pub full of regulars (some of whom start drinking very early...)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,131
    Omnium said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Omnium said:

    This seems like another cabinet of lightweights.

    Not sure that turning to someone who is thought of as a heavyweight would be beneficial (say Gove). Firstly there's the liklihood that these rather static years will have become an ingrained theme, and secondly if the Tories are going to turn matters around in the next two years they need quite a lot of fresh air. So personally I think the likes of Tugendhat and Badenoch should be more prominent than suggested, and I'd not give Braverman a spot.

    Chancellor is the key role. Kwarteng seems a reasonable choice, but whoever it is is going to have to be quite bold.
    If I were ambitious like Badenoch and Tugendhat I'd be inclined to sit this government out rather than be associated with what will likely be a shitshow followed by defeat. I'd spend time really thinking through what I'd want to do analysing the issues the country faces and coming up with a version of Conservatism which is attractive and relevant to today rather than a pale copy of a government in power before most voters were born. It's not as if Labour is brimming over with good ideas. If Labour is in power after the election, it could quickly find itself in trouble and vulnerable to an invigorated opposition under a genuinely fresh face.
    Undoubtedly that's an option. Certainly Labour could find themselves in a really awkward position if they need SNP help to form a government.

    I think it's far more likely that aspiring Tories would want to get direct experience of the big offices of state though.
    I can see that. But the risk is of being given some office where your reputation gets trashed because of problems you cannot solve or being associated with a hated government. A fine judgment I realise. But I'm not sure that being in a Cabinet made up of retreads, loonies and incompetents would enhance my CV. It's difficult to stay apart from a useless government while enhancing your profile.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT - I think the deal is obvious.

    The UK needs to agree with France that boats can be intercepted by them in French waters, with their permission, and all aboard landed back in Calais. No-one gets into UK waters.

    The UK then agrees to accept a quota of vulnerable migrants directly from France once (and only once) these claims have been processed in country.

    Sweeten the deal with lots of cash. Royal Navy also helps out France in the Med in return.

    As the bulk of the people on the boats come from countries where there is no legal route for them to claim asylum, how about we offer one? Nobody would go on the boat if there was an alternative.
    If we did that, how many do you think would apply and qualify?

    It could go up one-hundred fold.

    This is no answer without an answer on numbers.
    The answer remains that the current asylum process is unsustainable and unfit for purpose. It cannot long survive into the century where climate and population growth in unstable countries is going to result in unsustainable flows of people to more temperate and prosperous climes. This is what the government is trying to wrestle with with its "hostile environment" and now the Rwanda nonsense, neither of which even begin to address the pressures in the system.

    It also leads to complete absurdities. I was speaking to a friend yesterday who is acting for someone who has overstayed his academic visa because he has now got his qualifications and is employed by a front rank Scottish University teaching computing science. We are trying to send him back to Nigeria. Its completely absurd. We absolutely need people like this.

    Once we accept that asylum is entirely at our discretion and that we choose who comes here and whom we want or need immigration will not stop but it will be directed at our needs rather than those who are less fortunate. Harsh, but inevitable in my view.
    Without Rwanda, how do you stop the boats?

    Unless you’re prepared to sink them/watch people drown, Rwanda is the only option

    All this guff about “processing centres” is so much bullshit. France won’t do a deal with us because they want as many of them as possible in the UK, rather than France

    Simple as

    And they will keep crossing the Channel, rather than taking legal routes. because they know once they are here sans papiers we will shrug and say Stay
    Rwanda is an expensive waste of time and will deter no one. It does generate a good headline mind. See the Israeli effort in Rwanda, the free to roam detainees all roamed back to where they intended to first go.

    Your option B might work if anyone is heartless enough to try and sink the boats.

    Maybe as Rochdale suggested earlier, if we made more of an effort to tackle the organised criminal gangs that are working the illegal entries and running the immigrants by providing illegal employment once they are here, that would be significantly more useful than the half-assed idea of sending a couple of plane loads of Afghans, Vietnamese and Kurds to Rwanda each year. If they got to the UK once they can do it again.

    Rwanda will deter people if they know they'll actually be sent there.

    If they're not, then it won't.

    The Australian system worked by saying everyone, regardless of circumstances, would go.
    And that's the point.

    If the Home Office really wanted a scheme like Rwanda to work, it would need to have capacity for up to a thousand people a day for as long as it takes. That period of time might not be long, but that's the initial capacity needed.

    What the UK bought was a lowish number of hundreds of places a year, becuase that's what Rwanda can absorb.

    Judging the scheme on its own terms, it has to be Go Big or Go Home, becuause otherwise people won't Stay Home. That's true whatever you think of the ethics, legality or democratic mandate for the scheme.

    Since it that isn't happening, it's a plan that can't work. The kindest explanation is that the Home Office are too dim to se it can't work. But we can't exclude the possibility that it's a gimmick (look we're doin' somethin') or a wedge (we wanted to do somethin', but the liberal judges banned it). And if that's what's happenin', it's a cruel trick.
    I agree with this

    I was fully supportive of Rwanda as a concept but from the start I was highly skeptical that the government had the will, spine or energy to make it
    work: which means flying EVERYONE to Rwanda for weeks or even months

    And so it is. If, as you say, they knew this all along then it is indeed cruel as well as lame

    Nonetheless we will have to address this dilemma at some point. The migrants will not stop, they will grow in number. Either we say “if you can make it here you stay” - which will mean millions, transforming the UK in a way we cannot imagine - or we will have to get tough

    And so it will come back to the same brutal choice. Physically push the boats back and risk drowning people - or something like Rwanda

    There are no other alternatives. All this stuff about legal routes and “processing centres” is so much piffle for people who can’t or won’t address reality
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-62539789
    It's doubling every year. Those are just the ones that get caught btw and we are nailed on for over 100,000 this year. Say as many undetected is 200,000 is increasing pop by 2m per decade. Unreal.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,880
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Great



    “A drought in China is threatening food production, prompting the government to order local authorities to take all available measures to ensure crops survive the hottest summer on record.

    On Tuesday, four government departments issued an urgent joint emergency notice, warning that the autumn harvest was under “severe threat”. It urged local authorities to ensure “every unit of water … be used carefully”, and called for methods included staggered irrigation, the diversion of new water sources, and cloud seeding.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/china-issues-alert-drought-heatwave-put-crops-at-risk

    This is a big problem and not just for food. The Yangtze is a key industrial highway for raw materials and finished goods, and has hydropower stations with a total of 190Gb of nameplate capacity. That’s without the housing crash and economically destructive zero covid policies of Xi. It’s stagflation write large - simultaneously a massive drag on global growth with supply induced inflation.

    China is looking at an actual recession (as opposed to a reduction in growth) for the first time in living memory. It’s going to make everyone else’s problems a whole lot worse.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259
    BBC
    "Top UK politician in Kyiv for Independence Day celebrations
    The chair of the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee and former Conservative leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat has travelled to Kyiv for Ukraine's Independence Day celebrations."

    This reminds me of the standing joke in Parliament House that the only way we ever get to be called a "top" lawyer is to really screw something up or get caught misbehaving. By what definition, other than a piece of journalese, is Tugendhat a "top" politician?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,131

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,428
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My facebook feed is showing complete shit. The perturbing thing is it's different to the normal shit.

    Is it doing the thing where it forces you to watch random short videos aka "reels" from complete strangers?

    It's all part of Meta's drive to turn all their services into tiktok clones.

    They tried it with Instagram and people rightly told them to eff off.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/26/instagram-changes-user-backlash-trying-to-be-tiktok

    Social media these days seems all about pushing content on you from complete strangers, whereas I thought the point of it was to be able to connect with friends.
    Facebook is doomed. It has no USP and it has been largely abandoned by people under 40. People under 25 laugh when you ask them if they use it. They regard it as cringe and embarrassing

    It will fall off a cliff very shortly
    FB is mega important in the car and car parts games. Perhaps more so than eBay now.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,734
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    Great



    “A drought in China is threatening food production, prompting the government to order local authorities to take all available measures to ensure crops survive the hottest summer on record.

    On Tuesday, four government departments issued an urgent joint emergency notice, warning that the autumn harvest was under “severe threat”. It urged local authorities to ensure “every unit of water … be used carefully”, and called for methods included staggered irrigation, the diversion of new water sources, and cloud seeding.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/china-issues-alert-drought-heatwave-put-crops-at-risk

    This is a big problem and not just for food. The Yangtze is a key industrial highway for raw materials and finished goods, and has hydropower stations with a total of 190Gb of nameplate capacity. That’s without the housing crash and economically destructive zero covid policies of Xi. It’s stagflation write large - simultaneously a massive drag on global growth with supply induced inflation.

    190 GW of nameplate. Christ. Being hydro the uptime % will be high too...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    Starmer is going to have one hell of a mess to clear up after 2024.

    Trying to address channel crossings with a lefty toolset? He will be praying Braverman has left echr and the refugee convention and abolished habeas corpus for him. Then he can pretend he can't immediately find time to undo the damage
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,120
    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    This is the problem with so many of the 'doves'. They aren't spelling out what they think a deal would look like.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    - @SuellaBraverman: tipped for Home Sec
    - @theresecoffey: senior cabinet role, fixer or chief whip

    Liz Truss is a moron

    What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
    I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.

    But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
    I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
    It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
    But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117
    DavidL said:

    BBC
    "Top UK politician in Kyiv for Independence Day celebrations
    The chair of the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee and former Conservative leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat has travelled to Kyiv for Ukraine's Independence Day celebrations."

    This reminds me of the standing joke in Parliament House that the only way we ever get to be called a "top" lawyer is to really screw something up or get caught misbehaving. By what definition, other than a piece of journalese, is Tugendhat a "top" politician?

    He's someone that some people outside the Westminster bubble have heard of.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117

    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    Ukraine surrendering unconditionally?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,259
    Driver said:

    DavidL said:

    BBC
    "Top UK politician in Kyiv for Independence Day celebrations
    The chair of the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee and former Conservative leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat has travelled to Kyiv for Ukraine's Independence Day celebrations."

    This reminds me of the standing joke in Parliament House that the only way we ever get to be called a "top" lawyer is to really screw something up or get caught misbehaving. By what definition, other than a piece of journalese, is Tugendhat a "top" politician?

    He's someone that some people outside the Westminster bubble have heard of.
    You think? My guess is that if you put his picture to 100 people in the street you would do well to get 1 who could identify him and they would spell his name wrong.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,977
    Returning to the "who will think of the poor bugs?" discussion the other day re shellac on oranges -

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/24/insects-meat-flavor-mealworms-research

    'The new study, which will be presented to the American Chemical Society this week, found that the flavors were released when mealworms were heated with sugars, with the proteins and sugars interacting and caramelizing in a range of meat-like and savory flavors.

    Different cooking processes produced different results, the researchers found. Steamed mealworms give off a sort of sweetcorn-like aroma, while roasted and deep-fried versions have more of a similarity with shrimp. A panels of volunteers were used in sniff tests to ascertain the most meat-like favors of those concocted.'

    I'm hungry already.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,977
    DavidL said:

    Driver said:

    DavidL said:

    BBC
    "Top UK politician in Kyiv for Independence Day celebrations
    The chair of the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee and former Conservative leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat has travelled to Kyiv for Ukraine's Independence Day celebrations."

    This reminds me of the standing joke in Parliament House that the only way we ever get to be called a "top" lawyer is to really screw something up or get caught misbehaving. By what definition, other than a piece of journalese, is Tugendhat a "top" politician?

    He's someone that some people outside the Westminster bubble have heard of.
    You think? My guess is that if you put his picture to 100 people in the street you would do well to get 1 who could identify him and they would spell his name wrong.
    If you showed it to me again, I'd say George Younger.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,301
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:
    Christ that's incredibly distasteful, Oz is going to be walloped
    Weirdly that sort of.aggressive boorishness is the sort of thing Trumpers would lap up from the man himself. Doing cover versions well is hard.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,428

    Dynamo - what is your solution to the war then?

    This is the problem with so many of the 'doves'. They aren't spelling out what they think a deal would look like.

    Most of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts to Russia to preside over the smouldering rubble.
    Loads of cash to the Ukrainian oligarchs for 'reconstruction'.
    Turkish and/or (shivering) Indian peacekeepers on the new border.

    See you all back here in 2030 for Round 3.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,117
    edited August 24
    .
    DavidL said:

    Driver said:

    DavidL said:

    BBC
    "Top UK politician in Kyiv for Independence Day celebrations
    The chair of the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee and former Conservative leadership candidate Tom Tugendhat has travelled to Kyiv for Ukraine's Independence Day celebrations."

    This reminds me of the standing joke in Parliament House that the only way we ever get to be called a "top" lawyer is to really screw something up or get caught misbehaving. By what definition, other than a piece of journalese, is Tugendhat a "top" politician?

    He's someone that some people outside the Westminster bubble have heard of.
    You think? My guess is that if you put his picture to 100 people in the street you would do well to get 1 who could identify him and they would spell his name wrong.
    Before the leadership election perhaps not, but I gather it got a fair amount of coverage on the major TV news bulletins which, for some reason, a lot of people still watch.

    And in any case, "heard of" is a lower bar than "can identify from his picture".
This discussion has been closed.