If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
We do not elect “Starmer” or “Sunak” governments. If we elected Presidential style Sunak would have no mandate.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.
It's pushing it to suggest that had the 2019 election result gone the other way, we'd have had the same policy on Ukraine.
If the 2019 election result had gone the other way we might have stayed in the EU after a Second Referendum and, who knows, that might have dissuaded Putin. And if my Aunt had balls…
No-one serious thinks Brexit was a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
I’ve absolutely had it with the lazy dismissal of people one doesn’t agree with not being “serious”. Sure, the argument might be wrong, but do fuck off with the airy patronising dismissal of anyone that doesn’t agree with you as not being “serious”.
I’m passed off tonight and “seriously” not in a mood for any more shit. You think someone’s wrong, fine, tell us why. I’m sure someone in a Pall Mall club in 1935 convivially dismissed Churchill’s warnings about Germany on the grounds that his catastrophic cock ups in re the Gold Standard and the Dardanelles meant he wasn’t “serious”.
Fair enough. I think it's wrong because the roots of Russia's complex about Ukrainian independence are very deep and there was an internal logic driving Putin towards the decision to invade that had absolutely nothing to do with peripheral events like Brexit, just as he was not dissuaded from annexing Crimea when all was apparently well with the Western alliance in the pre-Brexit age of Obama and Merkel.
I’d also point out that staying on the Gold Standard was the Conventional Wisdom of the day. Coming off the Gold Standard was something akin to… Brexit :-)
Brining Gold Standard in general, yes, but most certainly not at the rate he pegged sterling at. He decided to ignore WW1 and fix it the 1914 rate of £1 to $4.86 against most advice A better analogy would be that it was like joining the Euro/ERM at some insane DM rate.
Well done to Nicola on helping Labour win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
The Tories seem to me just as bad as in 2019, it was quite obvious to me that we would end up here.
But we don't have JC anymore for Labour - and so that is why the Tories are behind.
Its not "just" that though is it? Johnson and Truss have Ratnered the Tory brand... possibly for ever.
I think if KS had been PM in 2019 Johnson would never have won a majority. The Tories were already unpopular after May, Corbyn just delayed the execution.
Johnson would have done, to get Brexit done, albeit a narrower majority. The redwall would still have gone blue, just Labour and the LDs might have won a few more Remain seats in the bluewall
I think you're wrong. I think it was Corbyn that delivered the Red Wall. Ed M held those seats comfortably.
The pitch to those voters was progressive economic policy and less unskilled immigration. Brexit promised that but then decided to expand non-EU immigration and Truss went with mad libertarianism. The overall pitch is still an enormously viable political strategy for anyone that wants to take it.
How funny, that is what Keir Starmer is offering
And he’s wrong, because without positive immigration we are screwed as a country. Attempting to look after an ever increasing elderly population with an every decreasing working age population. The maths doesn’t work.
It’s a global problem but at least we have the tools - English language, flexible labour market, relatively welcoming population - to deal with it, if we want to.
Do you think Japan is screwed as a country?
As an economy, absolutely. Look at their GDP per capita now, and their median household income.
Those figures tell you little about their quality of life and future prospects, and in any case, having a higher GDP per capita than countries like Spain or Italy is not most people's definition of 'screwed'.
Put it this way I’d not want to be in charge if Japan’s economy and public services. The direction is down down down. Only a couple of decades ago it had a GDP per head way above ours and higher than Germany’s.
If you visit Japan now, you don’t get the impression that you are visiting a place we have leapfrogged economically.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
Have you seen that case out of New York about the lawyers who did legal research via ChatGPT, which provided citations of made up cases, then excerpts from the fake cases which they appended to legal submissions even though it was clear they were nonsense, and are now saying they read none of it, whilst still submitting to Federal Court, and did not realise ChatGPT could be wrong?
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
That story is actually quite plausible, due to a certain kind of American lawyer. When they fuck up, due to a level of stupidity that resembles that of a dead marmoset, they inevitably respond that it is someone else’s fault and sue them.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong and the Taliban were on the other side of the world from the armies they defeated.
The Vietcong got blown to tiny fragments. This was fairly deliberate policy on the part of the Hanoi regime - getting rid of potential opposition on their own side.
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war. Backed a very large quantity of Soviet equipment.
No, it was the US which lost the war, by putting in power a corrupt Catholic minority, and antagonising the majority of the South Vietnamese populace. Along with killing a large number of them.
The South Vietnamese fought very hard, to the end. They only broke when they ran out of ammunition.
Some.
Most of the military were utterly corrupt and avoided contact assiduously. Without popular support it was obvious by ‘65 the war was unwinnable on the terms it was being fought. And the US likely killed more civilians than combatants.
Well done to Nicola on helping Labout win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especiially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
The Russians are so dependent on their railways, that stuffing their supply lines is just a list of fixed coordinates. If you have the kit to hit them - think Storm Shadow, extended range MLRS toys….
Well done to Nicola on helping Labour win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
Weren't you saying a month ago that Ukraine had punched multiple holes in the Russian lines?
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
How about Charles William Sydney Pierrepont? 4th Earl Manvers, of Nottinghamshire. English enough for you? Many more examples can be gotten in Hansard across the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries
Sounds suspiciously froggish to me.
Descendant of French bounder/henchperson imported by King John and the Sheriff?
The only true English are those whose roots lie in France.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
Have you seen that case out of New York about the lawyers who did legal research via ChatGPT, which provided citations of made up cases, then excerpts from the fake cases which they appended to legal submissions even though it was clear they were nonsense, and are now saying they read none of it, whilst still submitting to Federal Court, and did not realise ChatGPT could be wrong?
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
That story is actually quite plausible, due to a certain kind of American lawyer. When they fuck up, due to a level of stupidity that resembles that of a dead marmoset, they inevitably respond that it is someone else’s fault and sue them.
Based on reading the story published by NYT, believe that the lawyer in question was not so much blaming ChatGPT, but explaining how and why he'd screwed up. Claiming he did not intend to deceive or mislead, but simply was ignorant of fact that ChatGPT does make shit up.
He is NOT alone, by the way. Despite what eager, informed PBers may think, not everyone is as clued into what's happening now in the wide, wild world of tech.
For example, a professor recently told me about a case of ChatGPT garbage being submitted in answers to essay questions on tests. Which was brought to the attention of the dean & other senior academic manager types. Who turned out didn't know ChatGPT from a hole in the ground, or even more fundamental aperture.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong and the Taliban were on the other side of the world from the armies they defeated.
The Vietcong got blown to tiny fragments. This was fairly deliberate policy on the part of the Hanoi regime - getting rid of potential opposition on their own side.
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war. Backed a very large quantity of Soviet equipment.
No, it was the US which lost the war, by putting in power a corrupt Catholic minority, and antagonising the majority of the South Vietnamese populace. Along with killing a large number of them.
The South Vietnamese fought very hard, to the end. They only broke when they ran out of ammunition.
Some.
Most of the military were utterly corrupt and avoided contact assiduously. Without popular support it was obvious by ‘65 the war was unwinnable on the terms it was being fought. And the US likely killed more civilians than combatants.
Yet when the North came South with a huge tank army, the South fought until they ran out of ammunition. They hammered the North’s army pretty hard. An interesting what-if relates to the US Congress not cutting off arms supplies.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
We do not elect “Starmer” or “Sunak” governments. If we elected Presidential style Sunak would have no mandate.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No because, as Corbyn showed, it’s far more difficult to shift a Labour leader even if the majority of backbenchers wants him (maybe even one day her) gone. And the Tories have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Even a shit Labour government is better than no government at all, which is what we have now.
Not necessarily true. Governments can cause plenty of harm by interfering in which case no Government - as long as we don't have outright anarchy, the functions of the state still operate etc - is not such a bad option.
Tell me exactly where you draw the line where “outright anarchy” starts and we’ll talk. Contracts not being enforced because there’s no one to appoint judges? Bins not being collected? Pray tell what this “not quite anarchy” thing is?
when someone knocks on your door and says 'there is no government, we're here to kill you'
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
We do not elect “Starmer” or “Sunak” governments. If we elected Presidential style Sunak would have no mandate.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No because, as Corbyn showed, it’s far more difficult to shift a Labour leader even if the majority of backbenchers wants him (maybe even one day her) gone. And the Tories have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Even a shit Labour government is better than no government at all, which is what we have now.
Not necessarily true. Governments can cause plenty of harm by interfering in which case no Government - as long as we don't have outright anarchy, the functions of the state still operate etc - is not such a bad option.
Tell me exactly where you draw the line where “outright anarchy” starts and we’ll talk. Contracts not being enforced because there’s no one to appoint judges? Bins not being collected? Pray tell what this “not quite anarchy” thing is?
when someone knocks on your door and says 'there is no government, we're here to kill you'
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
How about Charles William Sydney Pierrepont? 4th Earl Manvers, of Nottinghamshire. English enough for you? Many more examples can be gotten in Hansard across the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries
Sounds suspiciously froggish to me.
Descendant of French bounder/henchperson imported by King John and the Sheriff?
The only true English are those whose roots lie in France.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
Have you seen that case out of New York about the lawyers who did legal research via ChatGPT, which provided citations of made up cases, then excerpts from the fake cases which they appended to legal submissions even though it was clear they were nonsense, and are now saying they read none of it, whilst still submitting to Federal Court, and did not realise ChatGPT could be wrong?
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
That story is actually quite plausible, due to a certain kind of American lawyer. When they fuck up, due to a level of stupidity that resembles that of a dead marmoset, they inevitably respond that it is someone else’s fault and sue them.
Based on reading the story published by NYT, believe that the lawyer in question was not so much blaming ChatGPT, but explaining how and why he'd screwed up. Claiming he did not intend to deceive or mislead, but simply was ignorant of fact that ChatGPT does make shit up.
He is NOT alone, by the way. Despite what eager, informed PBers may think, not everyone is as clued into what's happening now in the wide, wild world of tech.
For example, a professor recently told me about a case of ChatGPT garbage being submitted in answers to essay questions on tests. Which was brought to the attention of the dean & other senior academic manager types. Who turned out didn't know ChatGPT from a hole in the ground, or even more fundamental aperture.
I tried using it to help my research on an MA essay. It got the basics wrong.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
How about Charles William Sydney Pierrepont? 4th Earl Manvers, of Nottinghamshire. English enough for you? Many more examples can be gotten in Hansard across the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries
Sounds suspiciously froggish to me.
Descendant of French bounder/henchperson imported by King John and the Sheriff?
The only true English are those whose roots lie in France.
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien · 53m Sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what we are seeing here. The Ukrainians, using NATO equipment for only a few months, and without air superiority, are trying (and maybe succeeding) in driving back what was considered to be one of the world's greatest militaries.
The Vietcong and the Taliban won without NATO equipment.
The Vietcong and the Taliban were on the other side of the world from the armies they defeated.
The Vietcong got blown to tiny fragments. This was fairly deliberate policy on the part of the Hanoi regime - getting rid of potential opposition on their own side.
It was the North Vietnamese Army that won the war. Backed a very large quantity of Soviet equipment.
No, it was the US which lost the war, by putting in power a corrupt Catholic minority, and antagonising the majority of the South Vietnamese populace. Along with killing a large number of them.
The South Vietnamese fought very hard, to the end. They only broke when they ran out of ammunition.
Some.
Most of the military were utterly corrupt and avoided contact assiduously. Without popular support it was obvious by ‘65 the war was unwinnable on the terms it was being fought. And the US likely killed more civilians than combatants.
During the collapse of March and April 1975 many ARVN units in the north and central Highlands simply disintegrated through desertion.
Without US airpower they were done for, and they knew it, but even with that air power they were barely holding on.
Ultimately not many people fight for long for a puppet regime that they don't believe in. We saw that in Afghanistan, and also in the fall of Mosul to ISIS.
Well done to Nicola on helping Labout win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especiially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
The Russians are so dependent on their railways, that stuffing their supply lines is just a list of fixed coordinates. If you have the kit to hit them - think Storm Shadow, extended range MLRS toys….
Well they are but they aren't, they have a dependency but not quite as much as it used to be.
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I'm probably going to vote Labour. Not through any love of Starmer, as I don't think he'll be a good MP, but because the current Conservative Party is barely functional and has run out of any positive ideas. I actually prefer Sunak to Starmer.
And yes, the political landscape will look very different in four years time. But 'different' does not preclude 'better'.
(The Lib Dems are probably out as they're running the local council poorly. My actual vote will depend on the Labour and Lib Dem candidates at election time.)
And, if you do, you'll be making a big mistake.
Like many others, you'll look back on the last 24 months of administration under Sunak and realise it was much better and your vote was purely a process of catharsis and not a rational one.
Perhaps. I'm fully willing to admit that *may* happen.
But we can only go with what we see at the moment. Starmer has mostly ridden his party of the cancer of the Corbynites. The ERG nutters are still trying to run the Conservative Party. And they've repeatedly destroyed good governance in the Conservative Party over three decades.
And you supported Brexit. Don't go wittering on about rationality in others...
The ERG are toast. Completely marginalised. And they only really came to prominence recently, not over the decades you set out.
What we know of Starmer's policy platform - to ruin the independent education sector, destroy investment in energy production in the North Sea, several totally unnecessary nationalisations and to "magic up" a cut in tuition fees without spending a penny of public money - are as barking as they sound. They won't raise any extra revenue, indeed they are likely to cost it, and he's racking up lots of new spending commitments on top. It will mean more tax, more debt, and lower performance.
This current administration has a plan to return us to solvency and striking deals and becoming rather influential in international affairs.
And there's nothing wrong with Brexit. Rational people like Sunak and Gove supported it and are making a success of it.
We do not elect “Starmer” or “Sunak” governments. If we elected Presidential style Sunak would have no mandate.
We elect MPs who advertise their affiliation to parties, not leaders. And your party, yours, has dragged us into the mire we are in. Whatever you think of Sunak why should we give anymore time to your party of economic illiterates? Somehow we have sky high taxation and pathetically low investment. We are an international laughing stock. Gove and Sunak may be mitigating the Brexit catastrophe but they are not “making a success of it”.
Sunak is a technocrat who desperately wants to be a tech-bro prime minister but can’t pull it off. He has no vision, no competence, no plan. As a country we have no influence, few friends, and little money.
Starmer is, at worst, uninspiring, but despite your attempts to paint him as some diabolical villain (he wishes) he has ruthlessly got rid of the fruitcake elements of his party and seen off two of your leaders. Your party gave us Truss, to whom Sunak lost, before the markets forced her resignation. Without the City riding to the rescue, supported by Labour, we would be stuck with the madness inflicted by your party that would have had us begging to the IMF by now - although I would have been a couple of grand richer with winnings denominated in worthless sterling.
And doubtless you’ll say “Truss was a mistake quickly corrected”. Sure, but, not by the Conservative Party, instead by the real world consequences of its disastrous policies forcing change.
Your party has made an absolute pigs ear of everything. Even the vaunted “successes” are despite you rather than because of you. The vaccine rollout was thanks to the effective administration of the NHS. Ukraine has cross-party support. Nothing, nothing, on offer from the Labour Party could conceivably be worse. Sunak might be a nice chap but the party he leads, that you dutifully follow, may give us another Truss or Johnson anytime. For the sake of the country you need to go and go now. You’ve done enough already. Leave and let the adults take charge.
This is a rather optimistic view of the Labour party. There are a lot of MP's that came through in the Corbyn era. We don't hear very much from them but in a minority or small majority government they would hold Kier Starmer to ransom and the image he presents of 'Mr Competent' would probably be quickly jeapordised. We could well see Starmer being kicked out and a Labour version of the Liz Truss experiment emerging. We just don't know. It is not totally stupid to look at all this and conclude that Sunak has proven he is able to do technocratic government and keep his party in order whilst in government, so why take the risk.
No because, as Corbyn showed, it’s far more difficult to shift a Labour leader even if the majority of backbenchers wants him (maybe even one day her) gone. And the Tories have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Even a shit Labour government is better than no government at all, which is what we have now.
Not necessarily true. Governments can cause plenty of harm by interfering in which case no Government - as long as we don't have outright anarchy, the functions of the state still operate etc - is not such a bad option.
Tell me exactly where you draw the line where “outright anarchy” starts and we’ll talk. Contracts not being enforced because there’s no one to appoint judges? Bins not being collected? Pray tell what this “not quite anarchy” thing is?
when someone knocks on your door and says 'there is no government, we're here to kill you'
Well done to Nicola on helping Labout win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especiially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
The Russians are so dependent on their railways, that stuffing their supply lines is just a list of fixed coordinates. If you have the kit to hit them - think Storm Shadow, extended range MLRS toys….
Well they are but they aren't, they have a dependency but not quite as much as it used to be.
They do seem, regrettably, to have put up some stern defences and relatively orderly withdrawals for much of the war.
Well done to Nicola on helping Labout win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especiially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
The Russians are so dependent on their railways, that stuffing their supply lines is just a list of fixed coordinates. If you have the kit to hit them - think Storm Shadow, extended range MLRS toys….
Well they are but they aren't, they have a dependency but not quite as much as it used to be.
They do seem, regrettably, to have put up some stern defences and relatively orderly withdrawals for much of the war.
Indeed. But piles of shells left in the open with a tarp over them are not modern logistics. Which is why the Ukrainians are going after the rail lines. Due to the problems they have with trucks and handling equipment, the Russians can only supply a very limited radius from their rail heads.
We went from the first manned powered heavier than air flight - for about 1 minute a few feet above sand dunes - to putting a man on the MOON (and returning him) in 66 years
That is mind blowing
What have we done with the 54 years since Apollo 11?
I guess if we achieve AI then we can say Yeah we did it again
If in 2019 after the GE you would have told me the Tories would collapse, Boris was out of the HoC and Sturgeon was helping the police with their enquiries I would not have believed you.
Which is a sobering warning for those lauding the coming of the 30 year Starmer reich.
You can be certain the political landscape will look very different in four years time.
I am currently betting on the assumption Labour is in power for 5 years the max
This seems a common belief amongst many both instinctively pro and anti Labour. Why? Look at the stats and history. Changing governing Party is a very rare occurrence. Going backwards in time we have.
Tories 13 years and counting. Labour 13. Tories 18. Labour 11 out of 15. Tories 13 years.
The only proper one term government was Heath. What is so special about now that Labour won't come in for a decade plus?
It depends on the economy, in the 1960s and 1970s with high inflation, high tax and regular strikes (much like now) we had regular changes of government. Labour 1964-70, followed by Conservatives 1970-74, followed by Labour 1974-79 until Thatcher won in 1979 and finally sorted the economy out
But see. We didn't. We had Harold Wilson, but for a disastrous Tory interlude. Cars, washing machines, TV's indoor plumbing became ubiquitous. For the average worker the standard of living grew rapidly during this time.
....the rich fleeing to the US and Switzerland...
Andrew Neil and Stanley Johnson own homes in France, Nick Clegg and David Milband fucked off to America, the new flats in Battersea are owned by foreigners to rent to Brits and expatriate the profits, and our own PM has a wife who will catch he first flight out the minute he loses. The situation hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse.
"gotten"... One thing that has certainly got worse in the UK is the increased use of Americanisms.
A linguistic form that’s been around since Middle English, on and off.
Yes, some people have forgotten some of our ill-gotten forms of language.
But then I have received an answer to this; and that Buonaparté has gotten possession of the power and person of the pope. What power? He had no power before his captivity, and therefore he became a captive; he has not found his power in his captivity. Or will you say that he could now disband an Austrian army, or an Irish army; or that, if he were to issue out his excommunications, your seamen or soldiers would desert? Such the power of the pope—such your fear of it, and such is the force of their argument: what is the policy of it? Buonaparté has gotten the pope; give him the catholics.
Henry Grattan, House of Commons, Monday 13th May 1805
Sloppy mick. Or at least tired & emotional Anglo-Irish?
In all seriousness it is a form that just fell out of favour over here. I really don’t have a problem with most Americanisms. The world will not end if we stop spelling colour with a “u”.
Professionally speaking, though, American legal drafting is incomprehensible. That’s my line in the sand.
Have you seen that case out of New York about the lawyers who did legal research via ChatGPT, which provided citations of made up cases, then excerpts from the fake cases which they appended to legal submissions even though it was clear they were nonsense, and are now saying they read none of it, whilst still submitting to Federal Court, and did not realise ChatGPT could be wrong?
(Though another theory is just that they got caught citing nonsense, then fixed upon the idea of blaming ChatGPT and claiming massive incompetence instead of malice and incompetence in a desperate move to avoid being disbarred)
That story is actually quite plausible, due to a certain kind of American lawyer. When they fuck up, due to a level of stupidity that resembles that of a dead marmoset, they inevitably respond that it is someone else’s fault and sue them.
Based on reading the story published by NYT, believe that the lawyer in question was not so much blaming ChatGPT, but explaining how and why he'd screwed up. Claiming he did not intend to deceive or mislead, but simply was ignorant of fact that ChatGPT does make shit up.
He is NOT alone, by the way. Despite what eager, informed PBers may think, not everyone is as clued into what's happening now in the wide, wild world of tech.
For example, a professor recently told me about a case of ChatGPT garbage being submitted in answers to essay questions on tests. Which was brought to the attention of the dean & other senior academic manager types. Who turned out didn't know ChatGPT from a hole in the ground, or even more fundamental aperture.
Oh please, you call that not blaming ChatGPT? It's answers make it very clear what it is and what it is not when it comes to matters like legal advice. They are trying for an 'I'm an idiot, not a crook' defence, but no one is as stupid as they claim, since there were multiple steps from doing it to then defending it.
More to the point, whether they were aware it could give out incorrect answers is a complete distraction because very early on when it was 'brought to their attention' that there were fake citations they didn't look for the cases (some of the citations were fake, others real but for other, real, cases), which anyone could have looked up, yet they supposedly just asked ChatGPT 'are these real cases' and claim that they thought that was reasonable. Lawyers with decades of experience.
I'm with these podcasters in thinking they are lying through their teeth and trying to act like befuddled oldies tricked by a 'source that has revealed itself to be unreliable' (that last part is from one of their filings). The explanation for the 'screw up' doesn't make a lick of sense even if they did do the research on ChatGPT without any idea what it was - since they'd still be able to find the cases when they were told to provide them, rather than doubling down.
The podcast was too early for the latest hearing on it, where at least one of them admitting under oath to flat out lying to the judge in order to get a delay on a previous filing.
We went from the first manned powered heavier than air flight - for about 1 minute a few feet above sand dunes - to putting a man on the MOON (and returning him) in 66 years
That is mind blowing
What have we done with the 54 years since Apollo 11?
I guess if we achieve AI then we can say Yeah we did it again
The 1960s Star Trek model for the USS Enterprise is in a glass case in the basement. Pop down, have a look, come back and tell me what's odd about it.
Well done to Nicola on helping Labour win the election in 2024. Yet more proof of how absolutism and cults in politics tend to end very badly.
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
Weren't you saying a month ago that Ukraine had punched multiple holes in the Russian lines?
I had not, I had said that Russian government sources were reporting that the Ukrainians had attempted to breach front lines in a number of areas. That was along the Bakhmut front and my comment was 'make of that what you will'
Something used to cost £100. It now costs £110 due to inflation. Rishi Rich says that he will halve inflation. We are meant to feel grateful when the price increases to £115.50.
Get the price down to £105 if you want public gratitude, PM.
I see your point, but actually deflation is generally seen as an economically even worse problem than inflation as people defer spending if prices are expected to fall.
In general, price stability not dropping prices is the appropriate macroeconomic aim.
This is a point I have made about falling house prices and its impact on housebuilding. People like the idea that falling house prices and an increase in housebuilding could go together, but the reality is that when house prices are falling people are less likely to borrow large sums of money to buy premium new build houses, so there would be less demand for this type of housing, so the most probable outcome is that housebuilding also falls.
I think you've got it backwards.
We don't want a fall in prices to lead to an increase in construction.
We want an increase in construction to lead to a fall in prices.
Increased competition absolutely can lead to prices stabilising or falling. And if competition increases, then prices stabilise or fall, then housebuilding falls back, then it will be because the shortage of houses in the system has resolved. Although unless population growth stops entirely, there will always be a need for construction.
There was no let up in the production of various goods that have fallen in price, massively, over the decades.
Half the cost of building work is directly wages. That is half is bricks and roof tiles, half labour. Approximately. But the material themselves have labour inputs. And the materials for the materials.
Some guesses put the ultimate labour portion of a house at 70-80%.
Labour cost is a direct function, these days, of housing costs. The biggest cost for workers is their own housing!
So when house prices actually fall, for a period, labour costs will begin to trend down (assuming a competitive labour market). This in turn will make it cheaper to build houses.
In addition, the U.K. building industry is low productivity, compared to many other countries. Investment in non-exotic machinery - mini cranes and small diggers, say - could halve the work force on a house.
Its worth noting that half the building work cost of houses may be labour but that's not half the cost of the house.
An incredibly significant portion of the cost of housing is the cost of land, and almost all of the cost of land is planning permission.
An acre of farmland can cost £12-25k while an acre of land with planning permission for a house can be worth hundreds of thousands.
Eliminate that discrepancy and the cost of housing would collapse, without affecting labour costs. And as you say, if its cheaper to house people, then everything including labour becomes cheaper.
That is, ostensibly, Starmer’s headline policy. Whether he can deliver will be interesting to watch.
If he comes up with serious policies on this issue, I will hold my nose and vote Labour at the next election.
Careful. HYUFD might say you’re not a real Tory.
LOL.
One thing HYUFD is right about is that. I'm certainly a liberal who normally votes Tory. If I vote Labour at the next election it will only be the second time in my life, after voting Labour in 2001 in my first election.
The Tories should be the party of aspiration for people to have their own home.
If Starmer can get the importance of that but Sunak can't, what does it say about the state of today's Tory party?
I was going to offer Land Value Taxation as a policy here (good old Liberal idea).
The problem Sunak has is he has to balance the requirement of his core vote to maintain the status quo - his core of middle age and elderly northern and midlands home owners rather like the value of their asset continuing to rise which they can pass on (without IHT hopefully) to the children and grandchildren to provide the deposit for the next generation of home owners).
On the other side, he knows the longer term interests of the country and his Party are served by creating a new generation of home owners but he can't make houses affordable without causing existing values to drop which alienates his core.
That's not an easy circle to square.
It's impossible, which is why the Conservative Party will always cave to the interests of the already wealthy in the end. It's why the rumours of the abolition of IHT and revival of Help to Buy continue to swirl, and it also explains why they've already caved to their Southern Nimbies by junking housing targets for local authorities.
Today's Tories will always default to the elderly homeowner interest, trusting that they can return to power if they bring enough of them on side. What happens when the housing shortage means there aren't enough elderly homeowners left to outvote pissed-off renters is a problem for tomorrow's Tories to solve.
By then their children will have inherited of course (and even today by 39 most own property with a mortgage)
There aren't enough houses, therefore those that exist are too expensive. Inheritances will eventually bail some people out, but the numbers staggering under crippling rents into middle age will continue to increase. Eventually this will also undermine your party's support with the grey vote, as more of them end up having to work until they drop down dead to service rents.
No use bellyaching about the concreting of the countryside I'm afraid. If the Conservatives won't do it, eventually things will get so bad that voters will turn to somebody else who will.
There are if we cut immigration.
Most will have inherited by 60-65, so certainly wouldn't need to work beyond normal retirement age (having pensions already saved for too).
Voters across the South are already voting for NIMBY LDs and Greens and Independents because even the modest housebuilding proposed by former Tory controlled councils was too much. If Starmer tried to concrete all over the greenbelt there would be a revolution in the South
Cutting immigration will no more resolve the housing shortage than cutting inflation will see prices fall back down.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today our pre-existing shortage of houses will still exist. Just as if inflation dropped to zero today, then prices would remain higher than they were in the past.
If we cut net immigration to zero our population would decline as we have a birthrate now well below replacement level. On that basis even just controlled immigration and a fractional net increase each year would still see us have more than enough houses than we need
You're wrong as usual. In all but 2 of the past 50 years we've had more births than deaths in any given year.
"Replacement level" is a BS measure for measuring population change in any meaningful timespan,, birth rate versus death rate is the measure, and that has our births exceeding deaths every year but the height of the pandemic and one other year in the past half century.
The simple reality is that the housing crisis is already here. A typical healthy economy has 10% of houses empty which allows for churn as people move and for people to turn down houses that are unsuitable or priced unsuitably etc and we're running at 99% occupancy which is in any walk of life a failing system.
We don't need a few thousand extra homes, we need millions of extra houses in order to end the imbalance in the market. That will bring down inflation, bring down costs as people can afford their own home etc and at minimal cost to any 'green' space as we're not talking houses for a billion people, just the ones who live in this country and any net changes.
Something used to cost £100. It now costs £110 due to inflation. Rishi Rich says that he will halve inflation. We are meant to feel grateful when the price increases to £115.50.
Get the price down to £105 if you want public gratitude, PM.
I see your point, but actually deflation is generally seen as an economically even worse problem than inflation as people defer spending if prices are expected to fall.
In general, price stability not dropping prices is the appropriate macroeconomic aim.
This is a point I have made about falling house prices and its impact on housebuilding. People like the idea that falling house prices and an increase in housebuilding could go together, but the reality is that when house prices are falling people are less likely to borrow large sums of money to buy premium new build houses, so there would be less demand for this type of housing, so the most probable outcome is that housebuilding also falls.
I think you've got it backwards.
We don't want a fall in prices to lead to an increase in construction.
We want an increase in construction to lead to a fall in prices.
Increased competition absolutely can lead to prices stabilising or falling. And if competition increases, then prices stabilise or fall, then housebuilding falls back, then it will be because the shortage of houses in the system has resolved. Although unless population growth stops entirely, there will always be a need for construction.
There was no let up in the production of various goods that have fallen in price, massively, over the decades.
Half the cost of building work is directly wages. That is half is bricks and roof tiles, half labour. Approximately. But the material themselves have labour inputs. And the materials for the materials.
Some guesses put the ultimate labour portion of a house at 70-80%.
Labour cost is a direct function, these days, of housing costs. The biggest cost for workers is their own housing!
So when house prices actually fall, for a period, labour costs will begin to trend down (assuming a competitive labour market). This in turn will make it cheaper to build houses.
In addition, the U.K. building industry is low productivity, compared to many other countries. Investment in non-exotic machinery - mini cranes and small diggers, say - could halve the work force on a house.
Its worth noting that half the building work cost of houses may be labour but that's not half the cost of the house.
An incredibly significant portion of the cost of housing is the cost of land, and almost all of the cost of land is planning permission.
An acre of farmland can cost £12-25k while an acre of land with planning permission for a house can be worth hundreds of thousands.
Eliminate that discrepancy and the cost of housing would collapse, without affecting labour costs. And as you say, if its cheaper to house people, then everything including labour becomes cheaper.
That is, ostensibly, Starmer’s headline policy. Whether he can deliver will be interesting to watch.
If he comes up with serious policies on this issue, I will hold my nose and vote Labour at the next election.
Careful. HYUFD might say you’re not a real Tory.
LOL.
One thing HYUFD is right about is that. I'm certainly a liberal who normally votes Tory. If I vote Labour at the next election it will only be the second time in my life, after voting Labour in 2001 in my first election.
The Tories should be the party of aspiration for people to have their own home.
If Starmer can get the importance of that but Sunak can't, what does it say about the state of today's Tory party?
I was going to offer Land Value Taxation as a policy here (good old Liberal idea).
The problem Sunak has is he has to balance the requirement of his core vote to maintain the status quo - his core of middle age and elderly northern and midlands home owners rather like the value of their asset continuing to rise which they can pass on (without IHT hopefully) to the children and grandchildren to provide the deposit for the next generation of home owners).
On the other side, he knows the longer term interests of the country and his Party are served by creating a new generation of home owners but he can't make houses affordable without causing existing values to drop which alienates his core.
That's not an easy circle to square.
It's impossible, which is why the Conservative Party will always cave to the interests of the already wealthy in the end. It's why the rumours of the abolition of IHT and revival of Help to Buy continue to swirl, and it also explains why they've already caved to their Southern Nimbies by junking housing targets for local authorities.
Today's Tories will always default to the elderly homeowner interest, trusting that they can return to power if they bring enough of them on side. What happens when the housing shortage means there aren't enough elderly homeowners left to outvote pissed-off renters is a problem for tomorrow's Tories to solve.
By then their children will have inherited of course (and even today by 39 most own property with a mortgage)
There aren't enough houses, therefore those that exist are too expensive. Inheritances will eventually bail some people out, but the numbers staggering under crippling rents into middle age will continue to increase. Eventually this will also undermine your party's support with the grey vote, as more of them end up having to work until they drop down dead to service rents.
No use bellyaching about the concreting of the countryside I'm afraid. If the Conservatives won't do it, eventually things will get so bad that voters will turn to somebody else who will.
There are if we cut immigration.
Most will have inherited by 60-65, so certainly wouldn't need to work beyond normal retirement age (having pensions already saved for too).
Voters across the South are already voting for NIMBY LDs and Greens and Independents because even the modest housebuilding proposed by former Tory controlled councils was too much. If Starmer tried to concrete all over the greenbelt there would be a revolution in the South
Cutting immigration will no more resolve the housing shortage than cutting inflation will see prices fall back down.
Even if net immigration dropped to zero today our pre-existing shortage of houses will still exist. Just as if inflation dropped to zero today, then prices would remain higher than they were in the past.
If we cut net immigration to zero our population would decline as we have a birthrate now well below replacement level. On that basis even just controlled immigration and a fractional net increase each year would still see us have more than enough houses than we need
You're wrong as usual. In all but 2 of the past 50 years we've had more births than deaths in any given year.
"Replacement level" is a BS measure for measuring population change in any meaningful timespan,, birth rate versus death rate is the measure, and that has our births exceeding deaths every year but the height of the pandemic and one other year in the past half century.
The simple reality is that the housing crisis is already here. A typical healthy economy has 10% of houses empty which allows for churn as people move and for people to turn down houses that are unsuitable or priced unsuitably etc and we're running at 99% occupancy which is in any walk of life a failing system.
We don't need a few thousand extra homes, we need millions of extra houses in order to end the imbalance in the market. That will bring down inflation, bring down costs as people can afford their own home etc and at minimal cost to any 'green' space as we're not talking houses for a billion people, just the ones who live in this country and any net changes.
No, I'm right.
The birth rate in the UK is now just 1.61 per woman ie well below replacement level. So without high net immigration our population would decline longer term and deaths in due course exceed births and we would have more than enough houses than we need.
Oh come on! he thinks everyone is a crook except Alex Salmond lol. Everyone is on the take in Malcolm's sad and twisted little small man syndrome world. On this one he got lucky, but seeing as he accuses everyone, except Salmond (possibly the object of his repressed fantasises), it isn't that lucky, and it certainly isn't intellect or judgement. I should think even God himself is on the make as far as Malcolm is concerned.
@foremain , get lost loser , keep gnashing those teeth gammon boy.
Comments
In Ukraine there is now clear evidence that two of the three lines of attack are having local ground gains and successes. Nothing described as strategic yet in terms of size and significance. Its suggested the Russians have put in a lot of their reserves already yet the Ukrainians may have anything up to 4 brigades still not fully committed.
Things to watch for are:
What if there are signs of a collapse of the next set of defense lines. If you are to believe the stories the Russians may not have lot sitting behind contain a breakout. Can the Ukrainians get their reserve in play fast enough?
Russian tactical aviation. Russia has three advantages as of now: 1. they still hold a balance of artillery pieces and overall density of fire, if not the sheer accuracy of the Western kit, 1. A LOT of prepped defenses (which the Ukrainians could still go round rather than through) and airpower. That airpower is there but it appears to be nowhere near what you'd expect yet it has such potential
Advances at night. The Russians have been suggesting that the Ukrainians have a lot of really good night fighting kit, the question is if they can use it. Night fighting is a key component of the best of Western military training, but it takes practice.
Behind lines action. Reports of sabotage operations on railway lines and so on continue. There is every reason to think such actions will intensify in the areas ahead of the Ukrainian advance especially in the next 48 hours
The surprise move. A couple of options may be some amphibious work by the Ukrainians as they have been donated and training with a lot of brown water kit (and there is a lot of new areas of water available) and surprise new angle of attack somewhere againt the Russian lines, such as a right hook far to the East
Most of the military were utterly corrupt and avoided contact assiduously.
Without popular support it was obvious by ‘65 the war was unwinnable on the terms it was being fought.
And the US likely killed more civilians than combatants.
He is NOT alone, by the way. Despite what eager, informed PBers may think, not everyone is as clued into what's happening now in the wide, wild world of tech.
For example, a professor recently told me about a case of ChatGPT garbage being submitted in answers to essay questions on tests. Which was brought to the attention of the dean & other senior academic manager types. Who turned out didn't know ChatGPT from a hole in the ground, or even more fundamental aperture.
Without US airpower they were done for, and they knew it, but even with that air power they were barely holding on.
Ultimately not many people fight for long for a puppet regime that they don't believe in. We saw that in Afghanistan, and also in the fall of Mosul to ISIS.
And this
That is mind blowing
What have we done with the 54 years since Apollo 11?
I guess if we achieve AI then we can say Yeah we did it again
More to the point, whether they were aware it could give out incorrect answers is a complete distraction because very early on when it was 'brought to their attention' that there were fake citations they didn't look for the cases (some of the citations were fake, others real but for other, real, cases), which anyone could have looked up, yet they supposedly just asked ChatGPT 'are these real cases' and claim that they thought that was reasonable. Lawyers with decades of experience.
I'm with these podcasters in thinking they are lying through their teeth and trying to act like befuddled oldies tricked by a 'source that has revealed itself to be unreliable' (that last part is from one of their filings). The explanation for the 'screw up' doesn't make a lick of sense even if they did do the research on ChatGPT without any idea what it was - since they'd still be able to find the cases when they were told to provide them, rather than doubling down.
https://openargs.com/oa751-chatgpt-writes-fake-opinions-real-judge-is-not-amused/
The podcast was too early for the latest hearing on it, where at least one of them admitting under oath to flat out lying to the judge in order to get a delay on a previous filing.
Macroeconomics shows that Ukraine got it worse than the Great Depression. Yet, economy has not collapsed and people are not on the streets. The facts:
https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1667642389106769921
"Replacement level" is a BS measure for measuring population change in any meaningful timespan,, birth rate versus death rate is the measure, and that has our births exceeding deaths every year but the height of the pandemic and one other year in the past half century.
The simple reality is that the housing crisis is already here. A typical healthy economy has 10% of houses empty which allows for churn as people move and for people to turn down houses that are unsuitable or priced unsuitably etc and we're running at 99% occupancy which is in any walk of life a failing system.
We don't need a few thousand extra homes, we need millions of extra houses in order to end the imbalance in the market. That will bring down inflation, bring down costs as people can afford their own home etc and at minimal cost to any 'green' space as we're not talking houses for a billion people, just the ones who live in this country and any net changes.
The birth rate in the UK is now just 1.61 per woman ie well below replacement level. So without high net immigration our population would decline longer term and deaths in due course exceed births and we would have more than enough houses than we need.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2021