The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
I dont run into them now I moved away from that place strangely and even the nice people I knew turned to the cockroaches of society when they moved to the Wen
Cost of living and house prices in london likely big reason for this.
Nods don't disagree, just like living in a prison for years changes your attitudes so does london because while the bars and locks aren't physically there they are still there in terms of cost of housing and living
You are wildly overstating the position. If you just said London's an unfriendly place compared to most other places in Britain, that would unfortunately be accurate.
I actually don't think even that is true anymore.
Even northern cities vary in friendliness. I would say Newcastle is friendlier than leeds for example.
As a rule of thumb*, villages are friendlier than towns and towns are friendlier than cities. Thus just about anywhere in the West Country is likely to be friendlier than London.
(*There are exceptions: I have always found rural North Wales to be particularly unfriendly. Sorry but that's how it always seems to me.)
Huge observation bias is inevitable here because lots of people who move country-city-village-whatever are changing role too - employed to retired or whatever. We need evidence from postmen or barmen or district nurses who have made the move but stayed in the same type of job.
I moved and still in the same job....I worked in central london and still my official office
Maybe I'm just crazy, but is there value in the Corbyn bet? I'm sure we've been told on here that he's very popular in the seat and is almost certainly going to run again.
Maybe I'm just crazy, but is there value in the Corbyn bet? I'm sure we've been told on here that he's very popular in the seat and is almost certainly going to run again.
If you reckon people want the Tories to naff off but aren't breathlessly awaiting Starmer, makes sense to me. The number of independents who've won in modern times is very small. But many of them had been Labour MPs deselected by the party.
Maybe I'm just crazy, but is there value in the Corbyn bet? I'm sure we've been told on here that he's very popular in the seat and is almost certainly going to run again.
If you reckon people want the Tories to naff off but aren't breathlessly awaiting Starmer, makes sense to me. The number of independents who've won in modern times is very small. But many of them had been Labour MPs deselected by the party.
Mr Canavan is a conspicuous example. Biggest majority in Scotland.
Edit: and that's with Official Slab, SNP, SCUP and LDs against him.
It might not happen, but well, well over a 66% chance of happening.
Unfortunately TMV means it might not be worth betting on so much though.
Similarly laying Conservative most votes. That should be low single digits but at 10% inflation its not worth laying it.
I agree. The blisteringly good Tory expectation management ahead of these by-elections has made yesterday seem like a bad day for Labour. In reality the Uxbridge swing of 6.7% would be enough to get Labour close to majority on the new boundaries even with no tactical voting or SNP unwind.
I disagree, I think a Lab/LD coalition is very likely. Prepare for Ed Davey, deputy PM.
I'm afraid not.
The LDs were severely burned by Coalition 1.0 with the Conservatives - I'm not even sure they'd go for C&S for a minority Labour Government.
It'll be interesting if U&SR triggers any kind of polling revival for the Conservatives - Monday's Redfield & Wilton will be interesting.
U&SR was probably a very hard ask for Labour given the solid nature of the local Conservative vote in the north part of Hillingdon. It's an example of both volatility and resilience and a reminder uniform UNS is as reliable as sub samples. We know there are areas where the Conservative vote is more resilient and these islands of Conservative strength ensure a) there can't be an extinction event for the party but b) there are other areas where a large majority doesn't mean security if that majority is built on sand.
Also bear in mind indians are about 20% of the uxbridge constituency. There would likely be a fair proportion of that ethnic vote loyal to Sunak.
I think this point can be overstated. Indian-heritage voters in the NW London suburbs have been trending Tory since well before Sunak was an MP.
It might not happen, but well, well over a 66% chance of happening.
Unfortunately TMV means it might not be worth betting on so much though.
Similarly laying Conservative most votes. That should be low single digits but at 10% inflation its not worth laying it.
I agree. The blisteringly good Tory expectation management ahead of these by-elections has made yesterday seem like a bad day for Labour. In reality the Uxbridge swing of 6.7% would be enough to get Labour close to majority on the new boundaries even with no tactical voting or SNP unwind.
I disagree, I think a Lab/LD coalition is very likely. Prepare for Ed Davey, deputy PM.
I'm afraid not.
The LDs were severely burned by Coalition 1.0 with the Conservatives - I'm not even sure they'd go for C&S for a minority Labour Government.
It'll be interesting if U&SR triggers any kind of polling revival for the Conservatives - Monday's Redfield & Wilton will be interesting.
U&SR was probably a very hard ask for Labour given the solid nature of the local Conservative vote in the north part of Hillingdon. It's an example of both volatility and resilience and a reminder uniform UNS is as reliable as sub samples. We know there are areas where the Conservative vote is more resilient and these islands of Conservative strength ensure a) there can't be an extinction event for the party but b) there are other areas where a large majority doesn't mean security if that majority is built on sand.
Also bear in mind indians are about 20% of the uxbridge constituency. There would likely be a fair proportion of that ethnic vote loyal to Sunak.
I think this point can be overstated. Indian-heritage voters in the NW London suburbs have been trending Tory since well before Sunak was an MP.
Racist!
But I said the same about white voters last thread.
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
Bruce Willis: "Guess I was wrong about you. You're not such an asshole after all!" John Amos: "Oh, you were right. I'm just YOUR kind of asshole!"
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
It might not happen, but well, well over a 66% chance of happening.
Unfortunately TMV means it might not be worth betting on so much though.
Similarly laying Conservative most votes. That should be low single digits but at 10% inflation its not worth laying it.
I agree. The blisteringly good Tory expectation management ahead of these by-elections has made yesterday seem like a bad day for Labour. In reality the Uxbridge swing of 6.7% would be enough to get Labour close to majority on the new boundaries even with no tactical voting or SNP unwind.
I disagree, I think a Lab/LD coalition is very likely. Prepare for Ed Davey, deputy PM.
I'm afraid not.
The LDs were severely burned by Coalition 1.0 with the Conservatives - I'm not even sure they'd go for C&S for a minority Labour Government.
It'll be interesting if U&SR triggers any kind of polling revival for the Conservatives - Monday's Redfield & Wilton will be interesting.
U&SR was probably a very hard ask for Labour given the solid nature of the local Conservative vote in the north part of Hillingdon. It's an example of both volatility and resilience and a reminder uniform UNS is as reliable as sub samples. We know there are areas where the Conservative vote is more resilient and these islands of Conservative strength ensure a) there can't be an extinction event for the party but b) there are other areas where a large majority doesn't mean security if that majority is built on sand.
Also bear in mind indians are about 20% of the uxbridge constituency. There would likely be a fair proportion of that ethnic vote loyal to Sunak.
I think this point can be overstated. Indian-heritage voters in the NW London suburbs have been trending Tory since well before Sunak was an MP.
Racist!
I do wish you wouldn't bandy that term around willy-nilly on PB. It's reserved for Leon.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
Bruce Willis: "Guess I was wrong about you. You're not such an asshole after all!" John Amos: "Oh, you were right. I'm just YOUR kind of asshole!"
But it turns out in the end that he *wasn't *wrong about him!
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
Bruce Willis: "Guess I was wrong about you. You're not such an asshole after all!" John Amos: "Oh, you were right. I'm just YOUR kind of asshole!"
Turk Malloy: Watch it, bud. Virgil Malloy: Who you calling bud, pal? Turk Malloy: Who you calling pal, friend? Virgil Malloy: Who you calling friend, jackass? Turk Malloy: Don't call me a jackass. Virgil Malloy: I just did call you a jackass.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
The Supreme Court is now a non elected legislative body, whose legislation trumps (ha) everything else.
There is a majority for just about any damn thing, there, now.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
The US Constitution is regularly reinterpreted and SCOTUS currently has a strong lean to the right.
Plus, plans are regularly made that mostly fail, but do a lot of damage in the process of being attempted.
"Brian Cox and Simon Pegg among British stars rallying in support of Hollywood strike: 'AI is taking our jobs'
Dozens of actors and performers descended on London's Leicester Square in solidarity with their colleagues in the US, who have walked out in protest at pay and conditions in the industry."
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
Things have changed since the early 80s but I think this captures the best side of the great Wen and why it still draws people in:
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
Things have changed since the early 80s but I think this captures the best side of the great Wen and why it still draws people in:
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
Things have changed since the early 80s but I think this captures the best side of the great Wen and why it still draws people in:
"Brian Cox and Simon Pegg among British stars rallying in support of Hollywood strike: 'AI is taking our jobs'
Dozens of actors and performers descended on London's Leicester Square in solidarity with their colleagues in the US, who have walked out in protest at pay and conditions in the industry."
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
The Supreme Court is now a non elected legislative body, whose legislation trumps (ha) everything else.
There is a majority for just about any damn thing, there, now.
You are assuming that (alleged) conservatives on SCOTUS, would automatically go along with a Trump power grab.
Perhaps not. Seeing as how THAT would tend to erode the power of . . . wait for it . . . SCOTUS.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
Remind me who is the guardian of the constitution again?
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
I think the comparison only really works for large metropolitan cities. In Britain London and a handful of others. Not Hereford.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
I think the comparison only really works for large metropolitan cities. In Britain London and a handful of others. Not Hereford.
Like Paris vs say Limoges or Auxerre.
I think it would work for university cities.
It might therefore work for Worcester rather than Hereford.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
I think the comparison only really works for large metropolitan cities. In Britain London and a handful of others. Not Hereford.
Like Paris vs say Limoges or Auxerre.
I think it would work for university cities.
It might therefore work for Worcester rather than Hereford.
Cathedral cities are an interesting one. A very Specific British (or English & Welsh) intermediate cultural zone between market town and university town.
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
I dont run into them now I moved away from that place strangely and even the nice people I knew turned to the cockroaches of society when they moved to the Wen
Cost of living and house prices in london likely big reason for this.
Nods don't disagree, just like living in a prison for years changes your attitudes so does london because while the bars and locks aren't physically there they are still there in terms of cost of housing and living
You are wildly overstating the position. If you just said London's an unfriendly place compared to most other places in Britain, that would unfortunately be accurate.
I actually don't think even that is true anymore.
Even northern cities vary in friendliness. I would say Newcastle is friendlier than leeds for example.
That is totally true. Leeds isn't very friendly, and Newcastle is. Sheffield is maybe the friendliest big city I've been to in England. Glasgow is crazy friendly. But I will say it again - London is quite friendly, more so than the places that surround it. Or at least where I live in SE London is. I know all my neighbours, we go to neighbourhood house parties all the time, whenever I go out I always run into umpteen people I know, people wave to each other on the street, people on the street WhatsApp group are always lending each other things or helping each other, the kids are always in and out of each others' houses. I just don't recognise the 'unfriendly London' caricature.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
Things have changed since the early 80s but I think this captures the best side of the great Wen and why it still draws people in:
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
I dont run into them now I moved away from that place strangely and even the nice people I knew turned to the cockroaches of society when they moved to the Wen
Cost of living and house prices in london likely big reason for this.
Nods don't disagree, just like living in a prison for years changes your attitudes so does london because while the bars and locks aren't physically there they are still there in terms of cost of housing and living
You are wildly overstating the position. If you just said London's an unfriendly place compared to most other places in Britain, that would unfortunately be accurate.
I actually don't think even that is true anymore.
Even northern cities vary in friendliness. I would say Newcastle is friendlier than leeds for example.
That is totally true. Leeds isn't very friendly, and Newcastle is. Sheffield is maybe the friendliest big city I've been to in England. Glasgow is crazy friendly. But I will say it again - London is quite friendly, more so than the places that surround it. Or at least where I live in SE London is. I know all my neighbours, we go to neighbourhood house parties all the time, whenever I go out I always run into umpteen people I know, people wave to each other on the street, people on the street WhatsApp group are always lending each other things or helping each other, the kids are always in and out of each others' houses. I just don't recognise the 'unfriendly London' caricature.
Yep, same here on the other side of the Southern rail cutting.
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
Really need to get you and Malc at each other in a hip hop battle at some stage.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.
I dont run into them now I moved away from that place strangely and even the nice people I knew turned to the cockroaches of society when they moved to the Wen
Cost of living and house prices in london likely big reason for this.
Nods don't disagree, just like living in a prison for years changes your attitudes so does london because while the bars and locks aren't physically there they are still there in terms of cost of housing and living
You are wildly overstating the position. If you just said London's an unfriendly place compared to most other places in Britain, that would unfortunately be accurate.
I actually don't think even that is true anymore.
Even northern cities vary in friendliness. I would say Newcastle is friendlier than leeds for example.
That is totally true. Leeds isn't very friendly, and Newcastle is. Sheffield is maybe the friendliest big city I've been to in England. Glasgow is crazy friendly. But I will say it again - London is quite friendly, more so than the places that surround it. Or at least where I live in SE London is. I know all my neighbours, we go to neighbourhood house parties all the time, whenever I go out I always run into umpteen people I know, people wave to each other on the street, people on the street WhatsApp group are always lending each other things or helping each other, the kids are always in and out of each others' houses. I just don't recognise the 'unfriendly London' caricature.
If you don't know anyone and you're lost, someone will soon help you in Glasgow. They may well give you a lift. Same in much of northern England and indeed the Midlands and the West Country. In London somebody may grunt or mumble something but you're far less likely to get good ol' friendly human being to human being help. I am from London and I love the place despite this, so I'm not prejudiced and have no axe to grind.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Er... how would they get around the US constitution?
The US Constitution is regularly reinterpreted and SCOTUS currently has a strong lean to the right.
Plus, plans are regularly made that mostly fail, but do a lot of damage in the process of being attempted.
Quite so. I remember a lot of frankly idiotic comments that January 6th was no big deal because it didn't work. But that they got to that point, and with all that went around that, was damaging in its own right. As has been seen since in that the outcome of the last election is still denied.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
You who don’t want to spend a minute longer with your work colleagues than absolutely necessary because you have nothing in common with them?
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
My Dad was assaulted on a suburban train in London once because someone decided he'd looked in the wrong direction. Keeping to yourself in a big city is a defensive thing. I grew up in London and other people make me nervous.
My wife grew up in a rural area of Ireland where everyone knows everyone, so we've had an interesting exchange about the relative merits of the different social environments. It's pretty hard to be different in a rural social environment.
I don't know if it's possible to get the best of both worlds. I sure hope so.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
My Dad was assaulted on a suburban train in London once because someone decided he'd looked in the wrong direction. Keeping to yourself in a big city is a defensive thing. I grew up in London and other people make me nervous.
My wife grew up in a rural area of Ireland where everyone knows everyone, so we've had an interesting exchange about the relative merits of the different social environments. It's pretty hard to be different in a rural social environment.
I don't know if it's possible to get the best of both worlds. I sure hope so.
Honestly think people in the se are some of the most stand offish unfriendly people in the world.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
You who don’t want to spend a minute longer with your work colleagues than absolutely necessary because you have nothing in common with them?
I don't go to work to make friends though and yes pretty much I dont want to make friends. They are people I work with is all. In 2 years most of them wont be in my life anymore. Most places I have lived been there more than 10 years so I don't mind getting involved
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
My Dad was assaulted on a suburban train in London once because someone decided he'd looked in the wrong direction. Keeping to yourself in a big city is a defensive thing. I grew up in London and other people make me nervous.
My wife grew up in a rural area of Ireland where everyone knows everyone, so we've had an interesting exchange about the relative merits of the different social environments. It's pretty hard to be different in a rural social environment.
I don't know if it's possible to get the best of both worlds. I sure hope so.
This is exactly the point. People don’t suddenly become saints or arseholes because of where they live. It’s simply habitat adaptation.
Same is true across countries too. Poorer more rural countries tend to be more welcoming of strangers and more hospitable, and also more intolerant of difference, especially unorthodox lifestyles.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
You who don’t want to spend a minute longer with your work colleagues than absolutely necessary because you have nothing in common with them?
I don't go to work to make friends though and yes pretty much I dont want to make friends. They are people I work with is all. In 2 years most of them wont be in my life anymore. Most places I have lived been there more than 10 years so I don't mind getting involved
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And in terms of being 'friendly' or not I'm doubtful there's any material difference between people according to which country, city, town, or village they live in. Ditto with almost all other personal attributes. These bulk characteristics are mainly artefacts to oil conversations.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And which of those behaviours think is better. I prefer look after your neighbour. I don't want to go back to a world where I don't even know who lives next door and when I hear them fight I just put on headphones in case I hear something I dont want to. That was the south east.....dont talk to your neighbours. Ignore the sounds of screaming. Was in a block of flats girl stabs her boyfriend. He banged on lots of doors including mine for help. Everyone ignored it none of our business. That is the south east....don't get involved its not my issue. Yes I was an arsehole there too. The southeast leprosy grows on us all.
My Dad was assaulted on a suburban train in London once because someone decided he'd looked in the wrong direction. Keeping to yourself in a big city is a defensive thing. I grew up in London and other people make me nervous.
My wife grew up in a rural area of Ireland where everyone knows everyone, so we've had an interesting exchange about the relative merits of the different social environments. It's pretty hard to be different in a rural social environment.
I don't know if it's possible to get the best of both worlds. I sure hope so.
Honestly think people in the se are some of the most stand offish unfriendly people in the world.
Unfriendly is the wrong term. It’s simply social norms of gregariousness vs anonymity.
There are friendly and kind people everywhere. Most people in life are friendly and well meaning. Arseholes are a tiny minority. Some local cultures are just less gregarious than others.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
Erm...
It is unlikely. Just not quite as unlikely as one would wish.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
And in terms of being 'friendly' or not I'm doubtful there's any material difference between people according to which country, city, town, or village they live in. Ditto with almost all other personal attributes. These bulk characteristics are mainly artefacts to oil conversations.
bollocks are they about oil conversations, I havent driven in 15 years. I dont like them because they are arseholes when I was in the southeast
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Probably the only proto-dictator in a democracy that could do us in Britain and the rest of the West serious damage. We could probably shrug off a few years of a French or German fascist in power, like we’ve shrugged off Bolsonaro, Orban or Erdogan. US president on the other hand… It’s thoroughly worrying that Trump even stands a chance.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Because it's "Trump Derangement Syndrome" apparently
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
The view that Londoners are unfriendly is a bit dated. These days people in London are about average in terms of friendliness, IMHO. Less friendly than most places in the North probably but friendlier than much of the South East.
Working-class white people in London are the most unfriendly in my experience. Everyone else isn't too bad these days, perhaps even slightly more friendly than average for England. (Don't know whether this observation gets classified as politically incorrect).
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
Erm...
It is unlikely. Just not quite as unlikely as one would wish.
Still dont see how Biden makes it through another term given his health.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
Erm...
It is unlikely. Just not quite as unlikely as one would wish.
Still dont see how Biden makes it through another term given his health.
Have you heard the rumours about British Airways pilots? MSM isn't covering it at all.
I have been predicting this Trump decline, but now there is a poll supporting my argument, I find myself feeling cautious -- and hoping for more evidence.
(I suppose that's an example of a good general rule: Be especially cautious when you see evidence that you really want to see. For most of us, the easiest person to fool . . . is ourselves.)
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
Would said village be more or less liberal regarding the smell of weed permeating? Or loud techno? I imagine not at all. As ever it is about what you are being "culturally liberal" about.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
Erm...
It is unlikely. Just not quite as unlikely as one would wish.
Still dont see how Biden makes it through another term given his health.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Completely off topic: But I found this story from Arizona fascinating: "It’s a different story for the state’s wildlife. When it’s hot and there’s no rain — which is the case so far this season — the Arizona Game and Fish Department keeps animals of all sizes and shapes alive by bringing water directly to them.
Using heavy-duty water trucks and helicopters, they replenish a network of man-made watering holes, or catchments, across the state to help protect Arizona’s 800 species of wildlife, from 500-pound elk to wee kangaroo rats."
They've been doing this "since the 1940s".
And now they sometimes get rewards from the cameras: "On a recent visit, [Robert Birkeland, an AGFD region field supervisor] confirmed the deliveries are helping the elk that frequent the catchment. Trail cameras captured a gang of the animals splashing around, most of them lactating mothers with their three- to four-week-old babies."
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
Should be an 18 or an R. Fucking terrifying harrowing picture. Far worse than any Bruce Willis or Arnie shoot em up.
Or just ban crap films made from great books. The way the film portrays the Black Rabbit of Inlé is ridiculous. RIP Richard Adams, campaigner against laboratory experiments on animals.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Is this the same Trump who said the USA should put Chinese flags on its fighter jets and (quote) "bomb the shit out of Russia" in retaliation for Russian military action against Ukraine?
He continued, "And then we say, ‘China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it,’ and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.”
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Biden will give Ukraine what it takes but at a ratchet over time, which incidentally gives Ukraine time to absorb what they've previously been given before absorbing something new.
Trump may give Ukraine what it takes rapidly. Or he may not give them what it takes at all.
It's like replacing slow but steady winning the race with a coin toss instead.
So Trump gives Ukraine less chance of getting what it takes, but more chance of doing so in one big bang.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
That surprises me. Look at the personal attacks on PB - a relatively sane forum - on non-rightwingers. Diane Abbott comes to mind.
Oh really do come off it, people attack diane abbot because she is both stupid and innumerate
But in the personal tones and wording we had on here? I did say "personal".
There are plenty of reasons to pour scorn on Diane abbot none of them are because she is lefty, black or a woman. The same reasons apply to rees mogg. The difference is when people say it about rees mogg no one tries to claim its because he is black or a woman
Isn’t it bigoted to assume Rees Mogg is not a woman without asking him?
probably and isnt that part of the issue, he presents as a male, he has made no claims to not be male yet I am berated that it might be a bigotted thing to identify him as a male (yes I know you were joking, sadly I can imagine people making it as a serious accusation)
The important things are
1) be polite 2) remember that no one who shares a bottle is ever disliked for it. 3) enjoy the farce we live in, with a kindly smile.
So after the cricket, last night I did the Barbenheimer double bill last night, Oppenheimer didn't start until 11 which means I didn't get back to the flat until 3am.
Utterly recommend both film, Barbie is fun and deep, contains a brilliant homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
As for Oppenheimer, awesome, it is going to clean up at the awards.
It does have one major flaw in it, I mean the scene only lasted a couple of minutes but they managed to portray Harry S. Truman as a snivelling little shit.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
Is he?
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
Is he?
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Has it changed, or did I miss something?
Current GOP thinking as per the GOP senator from Utah.
Rishi Sunak aims to divide and rule after poll setback
New focus on migrants, trans rights and crime
Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights.
The prime minister insisted that the next general election was “not a done deal” after losing two by-elections. Labour’s victory in Selby & Ainsty represented the second biggest by-election swing from the Tories since 1945.
Sunak, however, took succour from holding on to Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Boris Johnson’s former seat in west London, after the Tories succeeded in turning the campaign into an effective referendum on plans by Sadiq Khan, the capital’s Labour mayor, to charge people with more polluting cars.
The prime minister privately acknowledges that after eight months of trying to restore order within Tory ranks he needs a “change in pace, emphasis and approach”. He believes that the victory in Uxbridge demonstrates that when a “substantive issue” is at stake the Tories can win.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Biden will give Ukraine what it takes but at a ratchet over time, which incidentally gives Ukraine time to absorb what they've previously been given before absorbing something new.
Trump may give Ukraine what it takes rapidly. Or he may not give them what it takes at all.
It's like replacing slow but steady winning the race with a coin toss instead.
So Trump gives Ukraine less chance of getting what it takes, but more chance of doing so in one big bang.
And 1 big bang is why Trump won't do that.
Which QED means simply less chance and no upside.
Yes. On the other hand, an actual win in Ukraine would give Trump the chance to claim that he is the first US president to actually finish a war since the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
Is he?
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Has it changed, or did I miss something?
Trump likes The Strong Horse.
These days, Putin’s Mighty Weapons are looking a bit droopy.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
Is he?
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Has it changed, or did I miss something?
Trump likes The Strong Horse.
These days, Putin’s Mighty Weapons are looking a bit droopy.
Only the terminally stupid would think Trump will do what is the best for Ukraine.
Remember this?
The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a U.S. political scandal that arose from the discovery of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine and other countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and giving misinformation relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics.
Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package in an attempt to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Biden will give Ukraine what it takes but at a ratchet over time, which incidentally gives Ukraine time to absorb what they've previously been given before absorbing something new.
Trump may give Ukraine what it takes rapidly. Or he may not give them what it takes at all.
It's like replacing slow but steady winning the race with a coin toss instead.
So Trump gives Ukraine less chance of getting what it takes, but more chance of doing so in one big bang.
And 1 big bang is why Trump won't do that.
Which QED means simply less chance and no upside.
It’ll be a different approach to that taken by Biden, but likely to have a similar effect as far as the Ukranians are concerned.
No weekly announcements about large monetary values of military aid sent to Ukraine, but rather the fast-tracking of new military spending for American systems, with thousands of jobs created, and little mention of what will happen to the old, obsolete systems they replace.
The question on everyone’s lips is really: what are we going to call the big smoke when it isn’t?
The great wen
Only Northerners call London The Big Smoke; only West Country folk call it The Great Wen. Since we established on the last thread that hardly anyone lives outside the South-East (so why do they have test matches?) it hardly matters.
Well I live in the west country now. However I was trying to polite, I would have said the suppurating gangrenous pustule on britains arse.
Hey! That's no way to describe the West Country - some parts of it are very nice.
Well only described that way by people addicted to their fumes and who love living in close proximity with 8 million arseholes
A true misanthrope as ever Pagan.
8 million people, all arseholes? Really?
They probably weren't till they moved to london then they learned to be. London seems to breed ill tempered nasty people.
The view that Londoners are unfriendly is a bit dated. These days people in London are about average in terms of friendliness, IMHO. Less friendly than most places in the North probably but friendlier than much of the South East.
Working-class white people in London are the most unfriendly in my experience. Everyone else isn't too bad these days, perhaps even slightly more friendly than average for England. (Don't know whether this observation gets classified as politically incorrect).
I think London friendliness suffers because of the size and transitory nature of much of the place. Personally I've always found apartment living at scale to be unfriendly - a big stack of rabbit hutches with meeting only in corridors, unless there is a communal garden or similar.
Community has to be found elsewhere - either at a place of employment or in communities of interest. I am told one way to meet people in London is to get a dog and take it for walks, or a cat and take it for rides.
It's interesting that going way back there have been attempts to design in social interaction - part of what is now called "Placemaking" in policy. An example is the inner / outer suburban SPAN developments started in the 1950s where car parking was made communal and slightly remote, developments were set in communal gardens, and physical features were set up to generate a measure of incidental interaction. They are still popular and in demand with people staying for a long time, so in measure it seems to have worked. There's a whole literature about such tactics.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
Is he?
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Has it changed, or did I miss something?
Trump likes The Strong Horse.
These days, Putin’s Mighty Weapons are looking a bit droopy.
Only the terminally stupid would think Trump will do what is the best for Ukraine.
Remember this?
The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a U.S. political scandal that arose from the discovery of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine and other countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and giving misinformation relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics.
Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package in an attempt to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
"in the unlikely event he be elected next year." ????
Erm...
It is unlikely. Just not quite as unlikely as one would wish.
Still dont see how Biden makes it through another term given his health.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Is this the same Trump who said the USA should put Chinese flags on its fighter jets and (quote) "bomb the shit out of Russia" in retaliation for Russian military action against Ukraine?
He continued, "And then we say, ‘China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it,’ and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.”
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Is this the same Trump who said the USA should put Chinese flags on its fighter jets and (quote) "bomb the shit out of Russia" in retaliation for Russian military action against Ukraine?
He continued, "And then we say, ‘China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it,’ and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.”
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper. The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
Who knows, but he has expressed the opinion before that being President allows (or should allow) him to do pretty much anything. And that if he is running for the post that it is outrageous he should face legal sanction for things (he does not restrict to saying he is innocent, but complains about an ex-President having to face it_. And seems to find the power of dictators very interesting.
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
It's deeply rational to worry about Donald Trump imo. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be unless they're a far right extremist or Vladimir Putin.
Putin has more to worry about than most. Trump is more likely than Biden to give Ukraine the means to escalate the war.
No he isn't. Seriously. Where does this insane hallucination come from? Here's Trump himself conspicuously not committing to a side about three months ago.
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Biden has been slow-walking military support for Ukraine throughout out of fear of escalation and fear of splitting the EU. He's said this explitly himself.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
Yes, NATO will survive. However the US won’t be contributing as much as it starts to look East to the new enemy, and European nations will need to increase their own military spending to fill the gap.
We're in for an unpleasant 11 or 15 months until the General Election, regardless of your political persuasion. Unless you relish dirty dog fighting, which some people do.
That Labour will win I am pretty certain of. But the Ulez fiasco should serve as a warning to them on all sorts of levels. It's probably a useful lesson but what is it with people in power generally, and socialists in power in particular, that they always forget about taking the electorate for granted and, worse, their propensity to tell 'the little people' what is in their best interests?
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
Would said village be more or less liberal regarding the smell of weed permeating? Or loud techno? I imagine not at all. As ever it is about what you are being "culturally liberal" about.
The people I know on council estates are far less tolerant of anti social behaviour like that than the people not on council estates - reason being, the peopleon council estates have to actually live with it.
"The 1978 animated film Watership Down has been re-classified to a PG due to its "mild violence, threat, brief bloody images and bad language".
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
The London vs regions thing is both ridiculously overstated, and also real but in a universal way that large cities and rural areas are culturally different around the world.
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
The UK is probably unusual compared to most other countries in that quite often the countryside is more liberal (with a small l) than urban areas.
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
Would said village be more or less liberal regarding the smell of weed permeating? Or loud techno? I imagine not at all. As ever it is about what you are being "culturally liberal" about.
The people I know on council estates are far less tolerant of anti social behaviour like that than the people not on council estates - reason being, the peopleon council estates have to actually live with it.
The parents from the estates who send their children to the local Free School clash with the middle class types over discipline. The middle class types are horrified by detentions for being late and out of uniform. And by the parents from the estates agreeing with the detentions.
Comments
Edit: and that's with Official Slab, SNP, SCUP and LDs against him.
John Amos: "Oh, you were right. I'm just YOUR kind of asshole!"
Donald Trump's team are presently drawing up plans to massively increase the powers of the presidency in the unlikely event he be elected next year. This would transform the US from its present democratic state into an autocracy at best, and potentially something far worse. It's all perfectly open, no secret, being reported on widely, though obviously not in this newspaper.
The outfit tasked with drawing up these plans is called the Heritage Foundation, a hard right US "think tank".
I would simplify it as follows:
In the city, good behaviour = live and let live, tolerance and don’t stick your nose in other peoples business where it’s not wanted. In the wrong hands that can mean indifference, introversion and lack of community spirit.
In the country, good behaviour = look out for your neighbour, don’t pass by the other side of the street, be a Good Samaritan. In the wrong hands that becomes judgmentalism, curtain twitching and intolerance.
There are long standing economic and cultural reasons for this difference. It’s not a British thing or a 21st century thing. It’s just a thing,
Virgil Malloy: Who you calling bud, pal?
Turk Malloy: Who you calling pal, friend?
Virgil Malloy: Who you calling friend, jackass?
Turk Malloy: Don't call me a jackass.
Virgil Malloy: I just did call you a jackass.
There is a majority for just about any damn thing, there, now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Emergency_Action_Documents
Plus, plans are regularly made that mostly fail, but do a lot of damage in the process of being attempted.
Dozens of actors and performers descended on London's Leicester Square in solidarity with their colleagues in the US, who have walked out in protest at pay and conditions in the industry."
https://news.sky.com/story/brian-cox-and-simon-pegg-among-british-stars-rallying-in-support-of-hollywood-strike-ai-is-taking-our-jobs-12925022
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8o2XHjvaEWE
Because urban areas tend to be more working-class and/or have higher percentages of EMs than the countryside, and both those groups tend to be less culturally liberal than white middle-class people, (despite the fact they're more likely to vote Labour at elections).
For example, take a random town/city like Hereford. A village just outside the city is probably more liberal than a working-class council estate in the town.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMZoh3mhby8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlj-5kPl6fU
[TL:DR: the producers want *eternal* rights to the actor's likeness after only a one-time low payment. Basically, digital slavery]
Perhaps not. Seeing as how THAT would tend to erode the power of . . . wait for it . . . SCOTUS.
Like Paris vs say Limoges or Auxerre.
It might therefore work for Worcester rather than Hereford.
Uneasy Rider - The Charlie Daniels Band
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJrRwTTqm0o
The Iliad - Ed Sanders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtVBrXvmmJw
But I will say it again - London is quite friendly, more so than the places that surround it. Or at least where I live in SE London is. I know all my neighbours, we go to neighbourhood house parties all the time, whenever I go out I always run into umpteen people I know, people wave to each other on the street, people on the street WhatsApp group are always lending each other things or helping each other, the kids are always in and out of each others' houses. I just don't recognise the 'unfriendly London' caricature.
https://youtu.be/TX9h558Tz1E
US Constitution has held up, mostly, so far, but he would surely seek to test its limits.
My wife grew up in a rural area of Ireland where everyone knows everyone, so we've had an interesting exchange about the relative merits of the different social environments. It's pretty hard to be different in a rural social environment.
I don't know if it's possible to get the best of both worlds. I sure hope so.
Same is true across countries too. Poorer more rural countries tend to be more welcoming of strangers and more hospitable, and also more intolerant of difference, especially unorthodox lifestyles.
Erm...
There are friendly and kind people everywhere. Most people in life are friendly and well meaning. Arseholes are a tiny minority. Some local cultures are just less gregarious than others.
I have been predicting this Trump decline, but now there is a poll supporting my argument, I find myself feeling cautious -- and hoping for more evidence.
(I suppose that's an example of a good general rule: Be especially cautious when you see evidence that you really want to see. For most of us, the easiest person to fool . . . is ourselves.)
I imagine not at all.
As ever it is about what you are being "culturally liberal" about.
16 months, Joe, can you manage that?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Dztdez7YuMI (Times Excerpt)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L07fMoafVh4 (CNN original)
We know exactly what Trump is going to do. He'll find the most powerful person in the room and try to dominate them, then if that doesn't work he'll suck up to them. What can he realistically threaten Putin with that Biden isn't doing? USArmy boots on the ground in Ukraine? He's not going to do that. Threaten Putin with a nuke? Putin will tell him to fuck off in Russian and the Russian people will join in. Nuke Russia? Putin will nuke the US.
Trump turned his back on Zelensky when Trump got elected (Trump wanted kompromat on Hunter Biden, Zelensky told him to do one). It took about three years to get him to publicly support Ukraine, and in the meantime the Army did as best they could (they were already there). His support for Ukraine has been at best lukewarm, and his public pronouncements now are sheerest fantasies.
Trump is more unpredictable and doesn't care about offending France or Germany, so there is a higher chance (not certainty) that he will do what it takes.
"It’s a different story for the state’s wildlife. When it’s hot and there’s no rain — which is the case so far this season — the Arizona Game and Fish Department keeps animals of all sizes and shapes alive by bringing water directly to them.
Using heavy-duty water trucks and helicopters, they replenish a network of man-made watering holes, or catchments, across the state to help protect Arizona’s 800 species of wildlife, from 500-pound elk to wee kangaroo rats."
They've been doing this "since the 1940s".
And now they sometimes get rewards from the cameras: "On a recent visit, [Robert Birkeland, an AGFD region field supervisor] confirmed the deliveries are helping the elk that frequent the catchment. Trail cameras captured a gang of the animals splashing around, most of them lactating mothers with their three- to four-week-old babies."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/07/21/arizona-heat-wildlife-water-supply/
(Arizona usually gets rain in summer monsoons, but they haven't come, yet -- as hopeful Arizonans would say.)
The movie is among the classic titles to have had their age ratings raised, along with the original Star Trek, according to the British Board of Film Classification's (BBFC) annual report.
After being resubmitted, the ratings were raised by the organisation, it said, in order to ensure they "remain in step with societal standards"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66267414
Australia deserve to lose this Test
They have been soundly beaten.
If Patrick Cummins had an ounce of honour he would concede, and concede now.
He continued, "And then we say, ‘China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it,’ and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese
Trump may give Ukraine what it takes rapidly. Or he may not give them what it takes at all.
It's like replacing slow but steady winning the race with a coin toss instead.
So Trump gives Ukraine less chance of getting what it takes, but more chance of doing so in one big bang.
And 1 big bang is why Trump won't do that.
Which QED means simply less chance and no upside.
Betting PostGood morning, everyone.
F1: backed Perez at 26 each way to win qualifying.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/07/hungary-pre-qualifying-2023.html
His form's been poor lately but he still has the fastest car by some distance.
Utterly recommend both film, Barbie is fun and deep, contains a brilliant homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
As for Oppenheimer, awesome, it is going to clean up at the awards.
It does have one major flaw in it, I mean the scene only lasted a couple of minutes but they managed to portray Harry S. Truman as a snivelling little shit.
I understood Trump's position to be 'I will stop arms supply and force Ukraine to negotiate within days".
Has it changed, or did I miss something?
https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1681899245912338432
Rishi Sunak aims to divide and rule after poll setback
New focus on migrants, trans rights and crime
Rishi Sunak is preparing to launch a more aggressive political campaign in an attempt to shift Labour’s lead in the polls with divisive policies on crime, migrant boats and transgender rights.
The prime minister insisted that the next general election was “not a done deal” after losing two by-elections. Labour’s victory in Selby & Ainsty represented the second biggest by-election swing from the Tories since 1945.
Sunak, however, took succour from holding on to Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Boris Johnson’s former seat in west London, after the Tories succeeded in turning the campaign into an effective referendum on plans by Sadiq Khan, the capital’s Labour mayor, to charge people with more polluting cars.
The prime minister privately acknowledges that after eight months of trying to restore order within Tory ranks he needs a “change in pace, emphasis and approach”. He believes that the victory in Uxbridge demonstrates that when a “substantive issue” is at stake the Tories can win.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-aims-to-divide-and-rule-after-poll-setback-rl0tqjqhw
Brighton one of the least green cities in the UK
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/23663286.brighton-one-least-green-cities-uk/
I'm not very optimistic in seeing much/any play this weekend.
These days, Putin’s Mighty Weapons are looking a bit droopy.
BBC weather just now has said that the rain pattern has changed slightly, which should see play at Old Trafford tomorrow after a delayed start
Fingers crossed
Remember this?
The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a U.S. political scandal that arose from the discovery of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine and other countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and giving misinformation relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics.
Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package in an attempt to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Ukraine_scandal
No weekly announcements about large monetary values of military aid sent to Ukraine, but rather the fast-tracking of new military spending for American systems, with thousands of jobs created, and little mention of what will happen to the old, obsolete systems they replace.
Community has to be found elsewhere - either at a place of employment or in communities of interest. I am told one way to meet people in London is to get a dog and take it for walks, or a cat and take it for rides.
It's interesting that going way back there have been attempts to design in social interaction - part of what is now called "Placemaking" in policy. An example is the inner / outer suburban SPAN developments started in the 1950s where car parking was made communal and slightly remote, developments were set in communal gardens, and physical features were set up to generate a measure of incidental interaction. They are still popular and in demand with people staying for a long time, so in measure it seems to have worked. There's a whole literature about such tactics.
Greenwash
These are the bottom 10 out of 59:
https://www.pollutionsolutions-online.com/news/waste-management/21/reliable-skip/unveiling-the-uks-least-green-cities-nottingham-takes-the-lead/60855
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/04/bolton-says-trump-might-have-pulled-us-out-nato-if-he-had-been-reelected/
Oompa Loompas are hard working, team oriented and dedicated to their work. And have a strong skill impromptu musical numbers and choreography.
That’s definitely not Donald Fucking Trump.
We're in for an unpleasant 11 or 15 months until the General Election, regardless of your political persuasion. Unless you relish dirty dog fighting, which some people do.
That Labour will win I am pretty certain of. But the Ulez fiasco should serve as a warning to them on all sorts of levels. It's probably a useful lesson but what is it with people in power generally, and socialists in power in particular, that they always forget about taking the electorate for granted and, worse, their propensity to tell 'the little people' what is in their best interests?
It hasn't been appropriate for young kids for decades. Bloody terrifying.