F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP
Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up
Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
I need to go and have a lie-down. Just listened to and agreed with Charles Moore on R4 about the BBC funding model. He was discussing with 2x "because it's the BBC, so we should all be made to fund it" types. He said no we shouldn't and it should be a subscription model and guess what the BBC isn't the only company to produce news.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
The statistics in the huge increase in channel crossings since 2018 are not a lie.
You can't make people feel comfortable that trending from a baseline of zero to a high number of 40,000+ is ok just because in Europe overall its at 200,000+
But is the true baseline zero? Ironically the surge in boat crossings is partly because we’ve effectively ended EuroTunnel crossings and made lorry crossings much more difficult.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
I would be interested to see numbers on the percentages of those who are actually claiming asylum if those who cross.
The subject has become toxic - with the belief that asylum seeker is a nobler thing that economic migrant.
Between January 2018 and June 2022, there were 50,297 small boat arrivals, of whom 94% applied for asylum (47,306), 91% as main applicants (43,066).
Of the main applicants, 82% were awaiting an initial decision on their application (35,322), and 16% have received an initial decision (the remaining 2% withdrew their applications). Of those small boat arrivals who have received an initial decision (6,910) since 2018:
43% (2,988) of applications were not considered, on third country grounds – this means that the UK will not consider the asylum claim and will instead seek the person’s removal to a safe third country, because the applicant was present or had a connection to a safe third country where they could reasonably have been expected to claim asylum before reaching the UK 49% (3,378) were granted asylum or another type of leave 8% (544) were refused for other reasons, such as their asylum claim being ‘clearly unfounded’, or the claimant not meeting the requirements for refugee status, or other forms of leave
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
The answer to:
Refugees/migrants: ensure that their countries of origin are every bit as desirable as the UK and the West. Islamic fundamentalism: Convince adherents that Western liberal democracy is superior to islamic Koranic literalism (and fundamentalist interpretation).
Neither short term fixes that, for example with the former, James Cleverley (successfully dismantled by Martha Kearney this morning on the wireless over his support for the mini-budget) can deliver during this election cycle.
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
It wouldn't be a loss in DJT's propecia addled brain. 2020 wasn't a loss as far as he's concerned. He is easily capable of running as an independent then claiming he won no matter what the result.
Best ever performance by a third candidate is surely within the grasp of Donald Trump.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
You can guess which one the hacks prefer riding in, so we’re unlikely to see much negative press around it
The RAF VC-10s were good. All the passenger seats faced backwards and they had large overhead lockers into which you could forcibly cram any Rishi sized comrades for a laugh.
F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP
Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up
Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
Max is a selfish arse. Most F1 champions are. For every Jenson or Damon we get a stock of Hamiltons or Schumachers or Verstappens. I'm not talking about them off the track, thats different. But as drivers they are not great sportspeople. Even Senna - who did so much for the poor in Brazil - was an utter arse behind the wheel. And I type that as a massive Senna fan.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
You can guess which one the hacks prefer riding in, so we’re unlikely to see much negative press around it
The RAF VC-10s were good. All the passenger seats faced backwards and they had large overhead lockers into which you could forcibly cram any Rishi sized comrades for a laugh.
Plus, something I hadn't known or wanted to know before, the wings can flap like a seagull's. I remember looking out of the window during some turbulence on one of them and it was like someone was shaking out a carpet.
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
The problem is that anyone can claim asylum here who reaches our shores if their country of origin doesn't come up to our standards on human rights.
I think that criteria should be changed.
We need international agreements and co-operation. The tide of people fleeing the poorer violent parts of the world will only increase in flow. The problem is that due to our tiny numbers any agreement would see us taking *more* people and a key demographic of voters want to take less or preferably none.
Mr. B, while second doesn't matter too much in the title race he (Verstappen) should've yielded. And even from a mercenary perspective, it was stupid not to. Perez is a professional and a good team player, but if he's fighting for a race win and it helps Verstappen's title prospects to swap positions, he's now less likely to do so.
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
He would prefer the Democrats to win than the Republicans to win without him as the nominee
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
You can guess which one the hacks prefer riding in, so we’re unlikely to see much negative press around it
Isn’t that G-XATW which appears to have been repainted in the Black livery? The current U.K. branded jet is G-GBNI.
They’re both Titan government planes. XATW was the first, and GBNI (formerly OATW) the second. Same fitout, they were both from a cancelled order by TCS World Travel.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
The problem is that anyone can claim asylum here who reaches our shores if their country of origin doesn't come up to our standards on human rights.
I think that criteria should be changed.
As I understand it, you would change the criteria to grant asylum to victims of genocide and pro-democracy campaigners, with some flexibility on the basis of political expediency and historical ties.
Consequently denying asylum to victims of homophobia, misogyny, religious/ethnic persecution short of attempted genocide, organised crime/state corruption or war (unless the war has a clear democracy/genocide divide).
I don't agree, but, if I have represented your view accurately, it's the most honest and coherent point of view opposing mine that I've come across. Normally people simply argue, "They're all faaaaake!"
Presumably that would be granting asylum in potentially large numbers to Rohingya and Uighur people (as victims of attempted genocide in Myanmar and China), Hongkongers* (on democracy and historical tie grounds) and Ukrainians (pro-democracy/anti-genocide war and ally). And then in smaller numbers for pro-democracy campaigners from various dictatorships (Russia, China, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran, Syria, etc).
Does that sound about right?
* Except not asylum as such to Hongkongers, but a simple route to citizenship.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
The deal Sunak has struck with Macron does at least lead to increased numbers of police patrols along the beaches of the French coast. British police will also be in control rooms with their French counterparts
F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP
Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up
Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
It wouldn't be a loss in DJT's propecia addled brain. 2020 wasn't a loss as far as he's concerned. He is easily capable of running as an independent then claiming he won no matter what the result.
Best ever performance by a third candidate is surely within the grasp of Donald Trump.
I gave that a like, for encouraging him to run.
But Teddy R got 27.4% in 1912, which he'd be extremely unlikely to beat.
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
True dat. If youy look at a chart of 30y gilt yields there's a Truss spike, but plainly no effect on the trend.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
You can guess which one the hacks prefer riding in, so we’re unlikely to see much negative press around it
The RAF VC-10s were good. All the passenger seats faced backwards and they had large overhead lockers into which you could forcibly cram any Rishi sized comrades for a laugh.
Plus, something I hadn't known or wanted to know before, the wings can flap like a seagull's. I remember looking out of the window during some turbulence on one of them and it was like someone was shaking out a carpet.
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
All wings flex - if they didn’t they’d snap. If you watch the wing during take off you’ll see the outer end rise substantially. The A350 wing can flex up to 5m before failing. Fun on the 747-200 was watching the wing not only bouncing up and down, but the engines rocking from side to side.
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
It wouldn't be a loss in DJT's propecia addled brain. 2020 wasn't a loss as far as he's concerned. He is easily capable of running as an independent then claiming he won no matter what the result.
Best ever performance by a third candidate is surely within the grasp of Donald Trump.
I gave that a like, for encouraging him to run.
But Teddy R got 27.4% in 1912, which he'd be extremely unlikely to beat.
It would be hard for him to beat that because if he has that much personal support he'll win the nomination.
F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP
Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up
Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
Max is a selfish arse. Most F1 champions are. For every Jenson or Damon we get a stock of Hamiltons or Schumachers or Verstappens. I'm not talking about them off the track, thats different. But as drivers they are not great sportspeople. Even Senna - who did so much for the poor in Brazil - was an utter arse behind the wheel. And I type that as a massive Senna fan.
There's a difference between being selfish, which is a job requirement, and being an utter arse, which isn't.
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
The logic of that though, is a few weeks ago we already had a mountain of debt and what did Truss decide to do? Add to it.
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
The wings can't be completely rigid otherwise they'd get ripped off the fuselage. All aircraft have aeroelastic limits in which some deflection of the structures is anticipated and accomodated.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
You can guess which one the hacks prefer riding in, so we’re unlikely to see much negative press around it
The RAF VC-10s were good. All the passenger seats faced backwards and they had large overhead lockers into which you could forcibly cram any Rishi sized comrades for a laugh.
Plus, something I hadn't known or wanted to know before, the wings can flap like a seagull's. I remember looking out of the window during some turbulence on one of them and it was like someone was shaking out a carpet.
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
All wings flex - if they didn’t they’d snap. If you watch the wing during take off you’ll see the outer end rise substantially. The A350 wing can flex up to 5m before failing. Fun on the 747-200 was watching the wing not only bouncing up and down, but the engines rocking from side to side.
Yes, the modern composite wings can seriously flex.
To reassure nervous flyers (and regulators!), they do test them to destruction as pert of the certification process. There’s a famous video of the 777 wings breaking, from back in the ‘90s. Look at the angle before it actually fails, you won’t see anything close to that in service, no matter how bad the storm. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
The wings can't be completely rigid otherwise they'd get ripped off the fuselage. All aircraft have aeroelastic limits in which some deflection of the structures is anticipated and accomodated.
Yeah I suppose it makes sense (as per @Carlotta's posting also).
I just seemed wild - I would say (using Mk.1 eyeball) over 5m flex. It seemed like these things were meeting in the middle above the plane.
Great to see all the liberation videos coming from Kherson, and now Zelensky has visited too. Couldn't imagine Putin having done the same within 3 days of troops arriving.
Hopefully it won't be too long until Sievierodonetsk, Luhansk, Sevastopol and the rest of occupied Ukraine is liberated.
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
True dat. If youy look at a chart of 30y gilt yields there's a Truss spike, but plainly no effect on the trend.
And yet every man and his dog out there believes - with good reason - that it is true. Remember that politics is not about the truth, its about which narrative is believed. The hard right catastrofucked in record time and have sunk for a generation not just their version of economics but the whole party.
Won't clog up with the workings but here's my assessment of WH24 chances:
Biden 25% DeSantis 20% Trump 5% NOTA 50%
I don't particularly enjoy continually shouting to all and sundry that DONALD TRUMP IS THE LAY OF MY LIFE but that is about the long and short of it. Or to be precise the short and short of it.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
I would be interested to see numbers on the percentages of those who are actually claiming asylum if those who cross.
The subject has become toxic - with the belief that asylum seeker is a nobler thing that economic migrant.
Between January 2018 and June 2022, there were 50,297 small boat arrivals, of whom 94% applied for asylum (47,306), 91% as main applicants (43,066).
Of the main applicants, 82% were awaiting an initial decision on their application (35,322), and 16% have received an initial decision (the remaining 2% withdrew their applications). Of those small boat arrivals who have received an initial decision (6,910) since 2018:
43% (2,988) of applications were not considered, on third country grounds – this means that the UK will not consider the asylum claim and will instead seek the person’s removal to a safe third country, because the applicant was present or had a connection to a safe third country where they could reasonably have been expected to claim asylum before reaching the UK 49% (3,378) were granted asylum or another type of leave 8% (544) were refused for other reasons, such as their asylum claim being ‘clearly unfounded’, or the claimant not meeting the requirements for refugee status, or other forms of leave
The question is the accuracy of the denominator - is that *all* small boat arrivals, all those caught, or all those who voluntarily contacted immigration services?
F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP
Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up
Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
Max is a selfish arse. Most F1 champions are. For every Jenson or Damon we get a stock of Hamiltons or Schumachers or Verstappens. I'm not talking about them off the track, thats different. But as drivers they are not great sportspeople. Even Senna - who did so much for the poor in Brazil - was an utter arse behind the wheel. And I type that as a massive Senna fan.
All top sportsmen are. Ruthless beyond anything us mortals can imagine. I've worked with a few.
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
It has nothing to do with Truss. This was the Sunak plan all along anyway - it's quite clear from his initial leadership run. He's using 'the markets' as a shiny new excuse.
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
True dat. If youy look at a chart of 30y gilt yields there's a Truss spike, but plainly no effect on the trend.
And yet every man and his dog out there believes - with good reason - that it is true. Remember that politics is not about the truth, its about which narrative is believed. The hard right catastrofucked in record time and have sunk for a generation not just their version of economics but the whole party.
It's possible, and obviously your preferred version. Alternatively, the Truss Reich was so fleeting and weird that most voters remember it as an unsuccessful Netflix miniseries rather than a thing that happened.
Of course if where we are is because of how we handled covid, that is equally or more of a problem for sunak.
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
The wings can't be completely rigid otherwise they'd get ripped off the fuselage. All aircraft have aeroelastic limits in which some deflection of the structures is anticipated and accomodated.
Yeah I suppose it makes sense (as per @Carlotta's posting also).
I just seemed wild - I would say (using Mk.1 eyeball) over 5m flex. It seemed like these things were meeting in the middle above the plane.
F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP
Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up
Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
Max is a selfish arse. Most F1 champions are. For every Jenson or Damon we get a stock of Hamiltons or Schumachers or Verstappens. I'm not talking about them off the track, thats different. But as drivers they are not great sportspeople. Even Senna - who did so much for the poor in Brazil - was an utter arse behind the wheel. And I type that as a massive Senna fan.
Jos Verstappen is a 24 carat a***hole. The apple in this case didn't fall too far from the tree.
The key difference between Max and the rest, is Max would not have felt a shred of remorse had he taken Hamilton's head off in 2021 rather than just crashing into Hamilton's halo.
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
The wings can't be completely rigid otherwise they'd get ripped off the fuselage. All aircraft have aeroelastic limits in which some deflection of the structures is anticipated and accomodated.
Yeah I suppose it makes sense (as per @Carlotta's posting also).
I just seemed wild - I would say (using Mk.1 eyeball) over 5m flex. It seemed like these things were meeting in the middle above the plane.
Certainly more of a worry back in the days they were still making wings with metal.
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
He would prefer the Democrats to win than the Republicans to win without him as the nominee
I see it this way too. If the GOP spurn him he'll try to ensure their defeat. Possibly by standing anyway, possibly in other ways.
Just because he's driven by so many dark impulses do not underestimate this one - spite.
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
True dat. If youy look at a chart of 30y gilt yields there's a Truss spike, but plainly no effect on the trend.
And yet every man and his dog out there believes - with good reason - that it is true. Remember that politics is not about the truth, its about which narrative is believed. The hard right catastrofucked in record time and have sunk for a generation not just their version of economics but the whole party.
It's possible, and obviously your preferred version. Alternatively, the Truss Reich was so fleeting and weird that most voters remember it as an unsuccessful Netflix miniseries rather than a thing that happened.
Of course if where we are is because of how we handled covid, that is equally or more of a problem for sunak.
'cept it leaves a wound open which eg. Martha Kearney prodded at with James Cleverley this morning asking whether, as a member of cabinet at the time and coming on to the media to defend it, he thought he bore any responsibility whatsoever for the mini-budget.
I notice also he has an iPhone and iWatch. Surely the best way to cripple The Russian economy would be for the USA to force Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft to turn off all services in Russia. I'm sure Apple being the controlling idiots they are will have a kill switch ready to go.
The government needs to be careful about this. Our economy is deeply unbalanced and has been living on unsustainable credit for far too long but if we seek to correct this too sharply we will have a very deep and savage recession. Half of this increase of £70bn comes from the cost of borrowing with interest rates expected to rise and stay higher. This is inflation driven but that same inflation will cause substantial fiscal drift as the real value of allowances falls and more income is taxed at higher rates.
We need to encourage investment as well as cutting consumption. The budget must have a range of measures for this too.
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
He would prefer the Democrats to win than the Republicans to win without him as the nominee
He could be deluded enough to think he could win as an Independent - or at least make a killing out of donations.
Bear in mind that there's absolutely a non zero chance that there are still Russian troops within the city and Russian lines are only 500m away on the other side of the river, this is an absolute baller move when Putin inspects airfields hundreds of km from the Ukrainian border.
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
True dat. If youy look at a chart of 30y gilt yields there's a Truss spike, but plainly no effect on the trend.
And yet every man and his dog out there believes - with good reason - that it is true. Remember that politics is not about the truth, its about which narrative is believed. The hard right catastrofucked in record time and have sunk for a generation not just their version of economics but the whole party.
It's possible, and obviously your preferred version. Alternatively, the Truss Reich was so fleeting and weird that most voters remember it as an unsuccessful Netflix miniseries rather than a thing that happened.
Of course if where we are is because of how we handled covid, that is equally or more of a problem for sunak.
Meh. People have a short memory for political detail and a long memory for political perceptions. The utter chaos over the summer of the Boris implosion, the absurd leadership contest, the Truss crash, the Boris back not back and now Sunak leaves the Tories with the lingering perception of [insert your own Bad Words].
You can't tell people that Truss didn't crash the economy and cost us tens of billions, for two reasons. One - the evidence of their eyes and ears. The media was very clear in its reports and the impact was so severe that she was removed from office in an absurdly short time Two - the Sunak government is already openly blaming Truss for the mess. It may have been the Sunak plan all along, but Sunak blames Truss.
As for Sunak's own record, personally I am a fan and have been openly on here. His multiple interventions on Furlough and loans literally saved the company I worked for at that time and countless others. But an awful lot of people will remember the Eat Out to Help Out debacle and the hell of lockdown. So my preferred version and the preferred version of most voters aren't the same thing.
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
It wouldn't be a loss in DJT's propecia addled brain. 2020 wasn't a loss as far as he's concerned. He is easily capable of running as an independent then claiming he won no matter what the result.
Best ever performance by a third candidate is surely within the grasp of Donald Trump.
If it entails getting 25% of the vote, even Donald Trump can’t spin that as a stolen election.
F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP
Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up
Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
Max is a selfish arse. Most F1 champions are. For every Jenson or Damon we get a stock of Hamiltons or Schumachers or Verstappens. I'm not talking about them off the track, thats different. But as drivers they are not great sportspeople. Even Senna - who did so much for the poor in Brazil - was an utter arse behind the wheel. And I type that as a massive Senna fan.
Jos Verstappen is a 24 carat a***hole. The apple in this case didn't fall too far from the tree.
The key difference between Max and the rest, is Max would not have felt a shred of remorse had he taken Hamilton's head off in 2021 rather than just crashing into Hamilton's halo.
Indeed. The problem with The Michael wasn't that he kept winning. Or even his dripping arrogance. It was that when push came to shove he openly cheated. Mad Max - like Schumie - is a phenomenal driver. But also a massive anus and like the Michael is happy to shove people off if need be.
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
He would prefer the Democrats to win than the Republicans to win without him as the nominee
He could be deluded enough to think he could win as an Independent - or at least make a killing out of donations.
Well he wouldn't be deluded on the second point. The only profitable business he's ever run is selling MAGA hats to idiots.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
Which is easy to say from a comfortable warm middle-class house, but less so when choosing between heating and eating after a shitty 12 hour shift as an under paid nurse.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.
Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.
It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
That's a load of crap.
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
True dat. If youy look at a chart of 30y gilt yields there's a Truss spike, but plainly no effect on the trend.
And yet every man and his dog out there believes - with good reason - that it is true. Remember that politics is not about the truth, its about which narrative is believed. The hard right catastrofucked in record time and have sunk for a generation not just their version of economics but the whole party.
It's possible, and obviously your preferred version. Alternatively, the Truss Reich was so fleeting and weird that most voters remember it as an unsuccessful Netflix miniseries rather than a thing that happened.
Of course if where we are is because of how we handled covid, that is equally or more of a problem for sunak.
Well yes to all of that - although Sunak does have the benefit that at no point during covid were any of his chief opponents urging him to spend less.
We will be paying for the hysteria of covid for years to come.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
But that is addressed by the fact we can, and we do, make exceptions on a case-by-case basis where this commands strong popular support: look at our generosity to Hong Kong or Ukraine.
The issue here is whether it should be a standing right in law that is immutable.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
The statistics in the huge increase in channel crossings since 2018 are not a lie.
You can't make people feel comfortable that trending from a baseline of zero to a high number of 40,000+ is ok just because in Europe overall its at 200,000+
But is the true baseline zero? Ironically the surge in boat crossings is partly because we’ve effectively ended EuroTunnel crossings and made lorry crossings much more difficult.
It was in terms of boat crossings in 2018.
But, yes, you're right: it's probably several thousand a year, by boat/train or lorry.
Mr. B, while second doesn't matter too much in the title race he (Verstappen) should've yielded. And even from a mercenary perspective, it was stupid not to. Perez is a professional and a good team player, but if he's fighting for a race win and it helps Verstappen's title prospects to swap positions, he's now less likely to do so.
When I was in the City - yawn, I know, but pls bear with me - there was a type of trader who took the view that the profits made from their activity were all down to their own personal talent and graft. Nothing to do with having the free gratis use of a top bank's balance sheet and its front middle and back office infrastructure, all of which being the product of countless other people and huge sums invested.
Max in his behaviour yesterday reminds me a little of this.
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
The wings can't be completely rigid otherwise they'd get ripped off the fuselage. All aircraft have aeroelastic limits in which some deflection of the structures is anticipated and accomodated.
Yeah I suppose it makes sense (as per @Carlotta's posting also).
I just seemed wild - I would say (using Mk.1 eyeball) over 5m flex. It seemed like these things were meeting in the middle above the plane.
Certainly more of a worry back in the days they were still making wings with metal.
Which bit was falling off in Nevil Shute's No Highway?
Indonesian officials say Lavrov did visit hospital but is back at the hotel now. In this video posted by the foreign ministry, Lavrov asks western journalists to be "more honest" but does not address whether he actually visited hospital
We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?
I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?
What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?
The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.
IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.
Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
But Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him. I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.
If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's. I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego. In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.
But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?
Not sure I see that as being his thing.
Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...
Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.
He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
He would prefer the Democrats to win than the Republicans to win without him as the nominee
He could be deluded enough to think he could win as an Independent - or at least make a killing out of donations.
Well he wouldn't be deluded on the second point. The only profitable business he's ever run is selling MAGA hats to idiots.
There was an early Humphrey Bogart film where he uncovers a slightly rebadged KKK type political movement. The reason for the evil mastermind - to make money off selling the regalia etc…
Like many internal "rights", slavery reparations, climate change reparations, 'safe and legal' routes, these are fundamentally driven by a socialist viewpoint in international aid organisations, charities and institutions that is driven by a motivation to reduce global wealth and inequality, overriding national government's as necessary, and not the issues they purport to be addressing.
Note that well over £50bn of this year's debt financing costs are represented by accrual uplift on index linked gilts.
Obviously there are unknowns - the rate of inflation; interest rates over the next few years; the interest on gilts buyers will accept etc. But they are all to some extent predictable in the near term, even if there is a range of uncertainty.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
The problem is that anyone can claim asylum here who reaches our shores if their country of origin doesn't come up to our standards on human rights.
I think that criteria should be changed.
We need international agreements and co-operation. The tide of people fleeing the poorer violent parts of the world will only increase in flow. The problem is that due to our tiny numbers any agreement would see us taking *more* people and a key demographic of voters want to take less or preferably none.
You're missing that they are not from the poorer more violent parts of the world but middle-income countries- like Iran, Iraq and Albania - who can afford the passage and contrive a credible persecution argument, for which we give them the benefit of the doubt.
If what you said was true we'd be taking vulnerable people - skewed to women and children who cannot easily defend or provide for themselves in conflict zones- from Yemen, Ethiopia, Burma, Afghanistan, and North Korea, and far more from sub-saharan Africa.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
Won't clog up with the workings but here's my assessment of WH24 chances:
Biden 25% DeSantis 20% Trump 5% NOTA 50%
I don't particularly enjoy continually shouting to all and sundry that DONALD TRUMP IS THE LAY OF MY LIFE but that is about the long and short of it. Or to be precise the short and short of it.
I've come round to this point of view.
Fairly clearly Rep nominee will probably be De Santis. It's the "if not Biden" question for Dem Nominee that plays on my mind.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
Like many internal "rights", slavery reparations, climate change reparations, 'safe and legal' routes, these are fundamentally driven by a socialist viewpoint in international aid organisations, charities and institutions that is driven by a motivation to reduce global wealth and inequality, overriding national government's as necessary, and not the issues they purport to be addressing.
Voters are smart enough to sniff this out.
Your problem is, the smart voters tend to buy in to that viewpoint; the dumb ones think we can carry on living on the imagined glories of the past and tell the rest of the world to f*ck off.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
The problem is that anyone can claim asylum here who reaches our shores if their country of origin doesn't come up to our standards on human rights.
I think that criteria should be changed.
We need international agreements and co-operation. The tide of people fleeing the poorer violent parts of the world will only increase in flow. The problem is that due to our tiny numbers any agreement would see us taking *more* people and a key demographic of voters want to take less or preferably none.
You're missing that they are not from the poorer more violent parts of the world but middle-income countries- like Iran, Iraq and Albania - who can afford the passage and contrive a credible persecution argument, for which we give them the benefit of the doubt.
If what you said was true we'd be taking vulnerable people - skewed to women and children who cannot easily defend or provide for themselves in conflict zones- from Yemen, Ethiopia, Burma, Afghanistan, and North Korea, and far more from sub-saharan Africa.
Indeed the evidence is that increased development increases migration. People who are starving can't afford to move looking for better opportunities, those who are more comfortable can start to broaden their horizons and seek better alternatives elsewhere.
The rise in migration is because development has been working, not failing. We've helped to lift hundreds of millions if not billions around the globe out of internationally-defined poverty around the globe in recent decades and as a result people can afford to want to move now.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
Mr. kinabalu, it's especially daft given the difficulty Red Bull faced getting a good wingman. Now they've got the perfect chap, who's played the team game very well, and this is a needless error by Verstappen.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
Democrats need to force Biden to announce he won't run again. They need to be able to take the moral high ground, find a candidate who is unquestionably not corrupt. I don't believe it's fair to blame a parent for the misdemeanours of a son or daughter. But, at the very least, Joe Biden has turned a blind eye to Hunter making lots of money out of his connection to his father. It's a form of corruption, it stinks, and Democrats going along with it is disappointing AND electorally stupid AND terrible for US democracy.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
But that is addressed by the fact we can, and we do, make exceptions on a case-by-case basis where this commands strong popular support: look at our generosity to Hong Kong or Ukraine.
The issue here is whether it should be a standing right in law that is immutable.
I say, no.
If every country did that then people fleeing war and persecution would have nowhere to go and would die. If we did it and other countries didn't then you'd have to ask why are we shirking our responsibilities? Is it because we are facing a bigger influx than other countries (no) or because our economy is so weak that we don't have the resources to help (no). And shirking our responsibilities would certainly carry a cost in terms of our global reputation and our international relationships. The reality is that we live in a dangerous world where conflicts erupt and people get displaced. We need to play our part in managing those population flows instead of thinking that we can simply close our eyes to it or pretend that we have no responsibilities. We benefit hugely from a stable global order and we need to face the relatively small costs associated with helping to manage that.
Lavrov did arrive in Bali over 22h ago (unlike Sunak who’s arriving in about 10 minutes) so it’s entirely possible he’s been to hospital in that time. Who has a motivation to lie, the Indonesians or the Russians?
Like many internal "rights", slavery reparations, climate change reparations, 'safe and legal' routes, these are fundamentally driven by a socialist viewpoint in international aid organisations, charities and institutions that is driven by a motivation to reduce global wealth and inequality, overriding national government's as necessary, and not the issues they purport to be addressing.
Voters are smart enough to sniff this out.
Indeed, see Rishi's record speed u-turn on climate reparations. At a time when the UK is being forced to raise tax and cut domestic spending to bring borrowing under control the idea that we should open the door to anything like reparations is idiotic.
The most stupid part of that idea was the bargaining side was the G77, a group of nations that includes China who would have benefited from climate reparations paid by the west. It was a completely mental idea and happily the door has been closed on it for good.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
So, 'Devon Cream Company' clotted cream, labelled as produced in Wiltshire, by a Dutch company. Still, maybe the Dutch are slightly hazy about the Devon/Wilshire boundary etc. Fair enough given most Brits seem to think the Dutch all live in 'Holland'
Like many internal "rights", slavery reparations, climate change reparations, 'safe and legal' routes, these are fundamentally driven by a socialist viewpoint in international aid organisations, charities and institutions that is driven by a motivation to reduce global wealth and inequality, overriding national government's as necessary, and not the issues they purport to be addressing.
Voters are smart enough to sniff this out.
Your problem is, the smart voters tend to buy in to that viewpoint; the dumb ones think we can carry on living on the imagined glories of the past and tell the rest of the world to f*ck off.
I don't know why you let your prejudices about voters rule your head on this.
Yes, sure, there are a sliver of voters who think like that but not most. One has to think of the delta between the 10-15% who match that stereotype and the 45-55% who have real concerns.
Like many internal "rights", slavery reparations, climate change reparations, 'safe and legal' routes, these are fundamentally driven by a socialist viewpoint in international aid organisations, charities and institutions that is driven by a motivation to reduce global wealth and inequality, overriding national government's as necessary, and not the issues they purport to be addressing.
Voters are smart enough to sniff this out.
Indeed, see Rishi's record speed u-turn on climate reparations. At a time when the UK is being forced to raise tax and cut domestic spending to bring borrowing under control the idea that we should open the door to anything like reparations is idiotic.
The most stupid part of that idea was the bargaining side was the G77, a group of nations that includes China who would have benefited from climate reparations paid by the west. It was a completely mental idea and happily the door has been closed on it for good.
I think Rishi is naive. He's also smart and a fast learner.
The question is: how rapidly can he learn?
Otherwise, he'll be walked all over by producer capture.
The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.
The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
So, 'Devon Cream Company' clotted cream, labelled as produced in Wiltshire, by a Dutch company. Still, maybe the Dutch are slightly hazy about the Devon/Wilshire boundary etc. Fair enough given most Brits seem to think the Dutch all live in 'Holland'
At least they don't think they come from a make believe place where Peter Pan and Tinkerbell live.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
But that is addressed by the fact we can, and we do, make exceptions on a case-by-case basis where this commands strong popular support: look at our generosity to Hong Kong or Ukraine.
The issue here is whether it should be a standing right in law that is immutable.
I say, no.
How were we generous to Ukraine? All our neighbours threw their doors open. We made them apply for a visa, including the stupidity of sending them from pillar to post in Calais to find the URL to a form which was broken.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
But that is addressed by the fact we can, and we do, make exceptions on a case-by-case basis where this commands strong popular support: look at our generosity to Hong Kong or Ukraine.
The issue here is whether it should be a standing right in law that is immutable.
I say, no.
If every country did that then people fleeing war and persecution would have nowhere to go and would die. If we did it and other countries didn't then you'd have to ask why are we shirking our responsibilities? Is it because we are facing a bigger influx than other countries (no) or because our economy is so weak that we don't have the resources to help (no). And shirking our responsibilities would certainly carry a cost in terms of our global reputation and our international relationships. The reality is that we live in a dangerous world where conflicts erupt and people get displaced. We need to play our part in managing those population flows instead of thinking that we can simply close our eyes to it or pretend that we have no responsibilities. We benefit hugely from a stable global order and we need to face the relatively small costs associated with helping to manage that.
I'm not sure you read my post properly.
Try engaging with what I actually said, rather than what you inferred I must have meant.
Won't clog up with the workings but here's my assessment of WH24 chances:
Biden 25% DeSantis 20% Trump 5% NOTA 50%
I don't particularly enjoy continually shouting to all and sundry that DONALD TRUMP IS THE LAY OF MY LIFE but that is about the long and short of it. Or to be precise the short and short of it.
I've come round to this point of view.
Fairly clearly Rep nominee will probably be De Santis. It's the "if not Biden" question for Dem Nominee that plays on my mind.
Don't think it'll be Buttigieg. Too Met.
Probably should be someone not part of the Biden administration.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
The problem is that anyone can claim asylum here who reaches our shores if their country of origin doesn't come up to our standards on human rights.
I think that criteria should be changed.
We need international agreements and co-operation. The tide of people fleeing the poorer violent parts of the world will only increase in flow. The problem is that due to our tiny numbers any agreement would see us taking *more* people and a key demographic of voters want to take less or preferably none.
You're missing that they are not from the poorer more violent parts of the world but middle-income countries- like Iran, Iraq and Albania - who can afford the passage and contrive a credible persecution argument, for which we give them the benefit of the doubt.
If what you said was true we'd be taking vulnerable people - skewed to women and children who cannot easily defend or provide for themselves in conflict zones- from Yemen, Ethiopia, Burma, Afghanistan, and North Korea, and far more from sub-saharan Africa.
Indeed the evidence is that increased development increases migration. People who are starving can't afford to move looking for better opportunities, those who are more comfortable can start to broaden their horizons and seek better alternatives elsewhere.
The rise in migration is because development has been working, not failing. We've helped to lift hundreds of millions if not billions around the globe out of internationally-defined poverty around the globe in recent decades and as a result people can afford to want to move now.
That should be celebrated as a good thing.
The latter bit, yes, but that can't be an absolute right. It never is.
If the whole population of London and Manchester wanted to decamp to the countryside in Cheshire and Hampshire, respectively, in just a few short years it would become a political problem too - and that's internal to a nation state.
Free movement works as an ideal, so long as not too many people try and exercise it all at once to similar places.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
The problem is that anyone can claim asylum here who reaches our shores if their country of origin doesn't come up to our standards on human rights.
I think that criteria should be changed.
We need international agreements and co-operation. The tide of people fleeing the poorer violent parts of the world will only increase in flow. The problem is that due to our tiny numbers any agreement would see us taking *more* people and a key demographic of voters want to take less or preferably none.
You're missing that they are not from the poorer more violent parts of the world but middle-income countries- like Iran, Iraq and Albania - who can afford the passage and contrive a credible persecution argument, for which we give them the benefit of the doubt.
If what you said was true we'd be taking vulnerable people - skewed to women and children who cannot easily defend or provide for themselves in conflict zones- from Yemen, Ethiopia, Burma, Afghanistan, and North Korea, and far more from sub-saharan Africa.
Hang on. You're describing Iran as safe and middle class? Iraq? How about Afghanistan? If we want to refuse these people their asylum claims I have no problem us doing so and then deporting them. The problem is that we provide them no legal way to claim asylum and then spend 3 years not processing their claims before deciding (usually) their claim is valid.
Following our debate last night on the alleged superiority of British over American sports, and the ascent of cricket. I made the point that cricket has the potential to be as big as or bigger than the NFL
Just found this in the NYT
“Both men, then, are quite familiar with what a billion-dollar business looks like. The sport where they see the biggest upside these days, though, might be a surprise.
“When we first started looking at cricket, we were by no means experts,” Scheiner said. “But the more we studied it, the more we realized it felt like the N.F.L. did 20 years ago.””
Just as it wouldbe a shame if they titted about with the T20 blast to layer another, pointlessly tweaked and less good version on top of it, it would be a shame if American money came in and titted about with Indian cricket, or indeed cricket in general. Cricket is as close to perfect as any sport in the world. The only improvement I could make would be another handful of nations playing it. And another thing - look at that photo of cricketers. Smiling cheekily. Not glowering like footballers trying to suggest they're hard in a way which makes you want to wish both teams could lose.
American money can’t change Indian cricket because the IPL doesn’t need the money. As the whole article (££) makes clear, the IPL is already overflowing with cash, and it will only grow from here. The Americans are trying (and often failing) to get a foothold
The sums are incredible. Billions. In 5 years IPL will probably overtake NFL as the richest sports league in the world. It might one day threaten EPL as the most-watched
This money will, I am sure, attract other nations to play the game. It’s irresistible. Add in south Asian diasporas worldwide…
Cricket’s future is rosy. It just won’t be Test cricket. Which is a shame, but hey Ho
I like the fact you can usually turn up at Lords on the final day of a test match and get in for about £20. If the long form of the game suddenly became too popular that might change, so in a funny sort of way I don't want it to.
What I am finding increasingly frustrating, if all too familiar, is how long the US takes to count its votes. In the last 5 days I think a single House seat has been determined moving Fox's analysis from 204/211 to 204/212. We still don't know for sure who is going to control the House although with only 6 to go the GOP are clear favourites.
I think that this makes the question asked in the thread header a little difficult. It is remarkable that the GOP seems to be at risk of being -1 in the Senate and lose dual control of committees etc. It would be a humiliation almost beyond belief if they failed to take the House too. This would not only destroy the current GOP leadership, it would drive the GOP to look beyond Trump for a winner, De Santis being the obvious exemplar of that. If, on the other hand, the GOP do end up taking the House reasonably comfortably the damage to Trump will be less severe and he remains in the game to a greater extent.
Democrats need to force Biden to announce he won't run again. They need to be able to take the moral high ground, find a candidate who is unquestionably not corrupt. I don't believe it's fair to blame a parent for the misdemeanours of a son or daughter. But, at the very least, Joe Biden has turned a blind eye to Hunter making lots of money out of his connection to his father. It's a form of corruption, it stinks, and Democrats going along with it is disappointing AND electorally stupid AND terrible for US democracy.
There's no such thing as a candidate who is unquestionably not corrupt. You can always raise *questions*, even if they're not actually corrupt. This is even truer if the *family* of the candidate has to be unquestionably not corrupt as well as the candidate themselves.
On the scale of US political corruption making money off the name of your famous father is as low as you can get. The voters got to hear about it, they (IMHO sensibly) decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker. You don't know if this will be true of whatever they dredge up on whoever would replace Biden, so getting rid of him *over this* would be astonishingly dumb.
Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.
And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
Exactly. Anyone familiar with the refugee camps in countries bordering the Middle East would laugh at the idea that we have a special problem. But I'd go further. In my view it's a disgrace to address the global refugee problem by hiding behind an accident of geography. If the main source of refugees was hundreds of thousands coming from Ireland, would we cheerfully accept that they should all come here instead of being shared out across Europe?
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
But that is addressed by the fact we can, and we do, make exceptions on a case-by-case basis where this commands strong popular support: look at our generosity to Hong Kong or Ukraine.
The issue here is whether it should be a standing right in law that is immutable.
I say, no.
If every country did that then people fleeing war and persecution would have nowhere to go and would die. If we did it and other countries didn't then you'd have to ask why are we shirking our responsibilities? Is it because we are facing a bigger influx than other countries (no) or because our economy is so weak that we don't have the resources to help (no). And shirking our responsibilities would certainly carry a cost in terms of our global reputation and our international relationships. The reality is that we live in a dangerous world where conflicts erupt and people get displaced. We need to play our part in managing those population flows instead of thinking that we can simply close our eyes to it or pretend that we have no responsibilities. We benefit hugely from a stable global order and we need to face the relatively small costs associated with helping to manage that.
I'm not sure you read my post properly.
Try engaging with what I actually said, rather than what you inferred I must have meant.
Er, you said we shouldn't have a standing right to claim asylum in our laws, per the international norm, and I was saying that we should. Apologies if I misunderstood what you were saying.
What I am finding increasingly frustrating, if all too familiar, is how long the US takes to count its votes. In the last 5 days I think a single House seat has been determined moving Fox's analysis from 204/211 to 204/212. We still don't know for sure who is going to control the House although with only 6 to go the GOP are clear favourites.
I think that this makes the question asked in the thread header a little difficult. It is remarkable that the GOP seems to be at risk of being -1 in the Senate and lose dual control of committees etc. It would be a humiliation almost beyond belief if they failed to take the House too. This would not only destroy the current GOP leadership, it would drive the GOP to look beyond Trump for a winner, De Santis being the obvious exemplar of that. If, on the other hand, the GOP do end up taking the House reasonably comfortably the damage to Trump will be less severe and he remains in the game to a greater extent.
California always take ages to count votes. I remember doing the presidential spreadsheet in 2012, having to check individual county websites after the news organisations lost interest in updating the numbers.
Comments
There are two fundamental issues, both essentially global. One is the periodic eruption of conflict or disaster (cf. Ukraine), which creates a huge number of "genuine" refugees by any reasonable definition. The other is the huge inequalities of opportunity and prosperity around the world. If Britain's response to these is to say "bugger off" to the former and "let's cut overseas aid" to the latter, we are failing in what is quite a natural human instinct - to help people in desperate circumstances.
Of the main applicants, 82% were awaiting an initial decision on their application (35,322), and 16% have received an initial decision (the remaining 2% withdrew their applications). Of those small boat arrivals who have received an initial decision (6,910) since 2018:
43% (2,988) of applications were not considered, on third country grounds – this means that the UK will not consider the asylum claim and will instead seek the person’s removal to a safe third country, because the applicant was present or had a connection to a safe third country where they could reasonably have been expected to claim asylum before reaching the UK
49% (3,378) were granted asylum or another type of leave
8% (544) were refused for other reasons, such as their asylum claim being ‘clearly unfounded’, or the claimant not meeting the requirements for refugee status, or other forms of leave
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2022/irregular-migration-to-the-uk-year-ending-june-2022
https://boardinggroup.one/travel/news/inside-the-uk-government-vip-jet/
This is the A321 inside, it’s an all-business layout originally specced as a charter for a VIP holiday company.
https://simpleflying.com/bewildering-inside-four-seasons-a321lr-private-jet-170000-a-ticket/
https://simpleflying.com/titan-airbus-a321neo-uk-government/
You can guess which one the hacks prefer riding in, so we’re unlikely to see much negative press around it
Refugees/migrants: ensure that their countries of origin are every bit as desirable as the UK and the West.
Islamic fundamentalism: Convince adherents that Western liberal democracy is superior to islamic Koranic literalism (and fundamentalist interpretation).
Neither short term fixes that, for example with the former, James Cleverley (successfully dismantled by Martha Kearney this morning on the wireless over his support for the mini-budget) can deliver during this election cycle.
BREAKING: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov taken to hospital after arriving for the #G20 summit in Bali - via @AP citing Indonesian officials
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1592083304760893442
This photo from a journalist on board suggests pretty standard economy seating down the back:
I’m on Rishi Sunak’s flight to the G20 in Indonesia and they are serving clotted cream from *Wiltshire* 🤢
Those six Cornish seats suddenly got a lot more vulnerable
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1591868938190991360?s=12
I suppose all planes' wings do that - even commercial, given the right (wrong) conditions?
The problem is we have so much debt as we locked people down during Covid. Its got bugger all to do with what Truss did a few weeks ago.
https://www.planespotters.net/production-list/Airbus/A321/A321neo
Consequently denying asylum to victims of homophobia, misogyny, religious/ethnic persecution short of attempted genocide, organised crime/state corruption or war (unless the war has a clear democracy/genocide divide).
I don't agree, but, if I have represented your view accurately, it's the most honest and coherent point of view opposing mine that I've come across. Normally people simply argue, "They're all faaaaake!"
Presumably that would be granting asylum in potentially large numbers to Rohingya and Uighur people (as victims of attempted genocide in Myanmar and China), Hongkongers* (on democracy and historical tie grounds) and Ukrainians (pro-democracy/anti-genocide war and ally). And then in smaller numbers for pro-democracy campaigners from various dictatorships (Russia, China, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran, Syria, etc).
Does that sound about right?
* Except not asylum as such to Hongkongers, but a simple route to citizenship.
But Teddy R got 27.4% in 1912, which he'd be extremely unlikely to beat.
To reassure nervous flyers (and regulators!), they do test them to destruction as pert of the certification process. There’s a famous video of the 777 wings breaking, from back in the ‘90s. Look at the angle before it actually fails, you won’t see anything close to that in service, no matter how bad the storm. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
I just seemed wild - I would say (using Mk.1 eyeball) over 5m flex. It seemed like these things were meeting in the middle above the plane.
Hopefully it won't be too long until Sievierodonetsk, Luhansk, Sevastopol and the rest of occupied Ukraine is liberated.
Biden 25%
DeSantis 20%
Trump 5%
NOTA 50%
I don't particularly enjoy continually shouting to all and sundry that DONALD TRUMP IS THE LAY OF MY LIFE but that is about the long and short of it. Or to be precise the short and short of it.
https://twitter.com/AZgeopolitics/status/1592089369141448704
Of course if where we are is because of how we handled covid, that is equally or more of a problem for sunak.
Lavrov at his hotel in Bali. Says reports about his health are a "political game"
https://twitter.com/PjotrSauer/status/1592088965296930817
Edit: Why's he wearing the colours of Ukraine?
The key difference between Max and the rest, is Max would not have felt a shred of remorse had he taken Hamilton's head off in 2021 rather than just crashing into Hamilton's halo.
Just because he's driven by so many dark impulses do not underestimate this one - spite.
It ain't going to stop...
We need to encourage investment as well as cutting consumption. The budget must have a range of measures for this too.
James Cleverly refuses to say how UK-France deal on asylum seekers will affect numbers crossing Channel
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/nov/14/james-cleverly-uk-france-channel-asylum-seekers-rishi-sunak-g20-uk-politics-latest
https://twitter.com/kylejglen/status/1592093082132123648
You can't tell people that Truss didn't crash the economy and cost us tens of billions, for two reasons.
One - the evidence of their eyes and ears. The media was very clear in its reports and the impact was so severe that she was removed from office in an absurdly short time
Two - the Sunak government is already openly blaming Truss for the mess. It may have been the Sunak plan all along, but Sunak blames Truss.
As for Sunak's own record, personally I am a fan and have been openly on here. His multiple interventions on Furlough and loans literally saved the company I worked for at that time and countless others. But an awful lot of people will remember the Eat Out to Help Out debacle and the hell of lockdown. So my preferred version and the preferred version of most voters aren't the same thing.
The only profitable business he's ever run is selling MAGA hats to idiots.
We will be paying for the hysteria of covid for years to come.
The issue here is whether it should be a standing right in law that is immutable.
I say, no.
But, yes, you're right: it's probably several thousand a year, by boat/train or lorry.
Max in his behaviour yesterday reminds me a little of this.
Indonesian officials say Lavrov did visit hospital but is back at the hotel now. In this video posted by the foreign ministry, Lavrov asks western journalists to be "more honest" but does not address whether he actually visited hospital
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1592094602533953536
Voters are smart enough to sniff this out.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1062459/DMR_2022-23.pdf
Note that well over £50bn of this year's debt financing costs are represented by accrual uplift on index linked gilts.
Obviously there are unknowns - the rate of inflation; interest rates over the next few years; the interest on gilts buyers will accept etc. But they are all to some extent predictable in the near term, even if there is a range of uncertainty.
If what you said was true we'd be taking vulnerable people - skewed to women and children who cannot easily defend or provide for themselves in conflict zones- from Yemen, Ethiopia, Burma, Afghanistan, and North Korea, and far more from sub-saharan Africa.
Apparently, it's yellower than the other kinds because of high carotene level in the grass
I don't know what that does to the flavour
Fairly clearly Rep nominee will probably be De Santis. It's the "if not Biden" question for Dem Nominee that plays on my mind.
Don't think it'll be Buttigieg. Too Met.
The rise in migration is because development has been working, not failing. We've helped to lift hundreds of millions if not billions around the globe out of internationally-defined poverty around the globe in recent decades and as a result people can afford to want to move now.
That should be celebrated as a good thing.
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1591895483928248321?s=20&t=AVPE0BrQ87Tv1fYZ4aTKIw
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001f4h5
Democrats need to force Biden to announce he won't run again. They need to be able to take the moral high ground, find a candidate who is unquestionably not corrupt. I don't believe it's fair to blame a parent for the misdemeanours of a son or daughter. But, at the very least, Joe Biden has turned a blind eye to Hunter making lots of money out of his connection to his father. It's a form of corruption, it stinks, and Democrats going along with it is disappointing AND electorally stupid AND terrible for US democracy.
The reality is that we live in a dangerous world where conflicts erupt and people get displaced. We need to play our part in managing those population flows instead of thinking that we can simply close our eyes to it or pretend that we have no responsibilities. We benefit hugely from a stable global order and we need to face the relatively small costs associated with helping to manage that.
https://twitter.com/DagnyTaggart963/status/1591756959103029250
The most stupid part of that idea was the bargaining side was the G77, a group of nations that includes China who would have benefited from climate reparations paid by the west. It was a completely mental idea and happily the door has been closed on it for good.
Yes, sure, there are a sliver of voters who think like that but not most. One has to think of the delta between the 10-15% who match that stereotype and the 45-55% who have real concerns.
The question is: how rapidly can he learn?
Otherwise, he'll be walked all over by producer capture.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/10/ben-wallace-steps-back-liz-truss-defence-spending-target
He came to polish his head and kick ass and he's all out of scalp wax.
https://youtu.be/CfO5DBsyVPU?t=70
Boris *claimed* we were generous. We were not.
Try engaging with what I actually said, rather than what you inferred I must have meant.
If the whole population of London and Manchester wanted to decamp to the countryside in Cheshire and Hampshire, respectively, in just a few short years it would become a political problem too - and that's internal to a nation state.
Free movement works as an ideal, so long as not too many people try and exercise it all at once to similar places.
I think that this makes the question asked in the thread header a little difficult. It is remarkable that the GOP seems to be at risk of being -1 in the Senate and lose dual control of committees etc. It would be a humiliation almost beyond belief if they failed to take the House too. This would not only destroy the current GOP leadership, it would drive the GOP to look beyond Trump for a winner, De Santis being the obvious exemplar of that. If, on the other hand, the GOP do end up taking the House reasonably comfortably the damage to Trump will be less severe and he remains in the game to a greater extent.
On the scale of US political corruption making money off the name of your famous father is as low as you can get. The voters got to hear about it, they (IMHO sensibly) decided that it wasn't a deal-breaker. You don't know if this will be true of whatever they dredge up on whoever would replace Biden, so getting rid of him *over this* would be astonishingly dumb.