The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Misleading title, because if you read the article it isn't talking about voters, it's talking about population, which is not the same thing.
Not misleading at all. In fact, that is rather the point.
If you do it by census, while unlikely it could happen that a constituency has a few hundred eligible to actually vote...we used to call those rottenboroughs
A few hundred voters from 70,000 constituents? Is that where Suella has sent all the asylum seekers?
Doesnt need to be asylum seekers why make it about that? sections of for example london have less people eligble to vote. Therefore if you apply census stats then you get 1 constituency with 20000k voters and one with 150000k voters
To get down to hundreds of voters from 70,000 it would need to be something like that.
MPs represent everyone in a constituency, whether or not they voted, are registered to vote, or are eligible to vote.
So I shouldnt count to a constituency as a registered voter is what you are saying because I refuse the census?
Their are lots of areas of london when fewer that 50% of people are not eligible to vote for example so they will elect an mp on a lot less vote than an area with fewer immigrants ineligble to vote. That is a distortion. You can only base for fairness constituencies on people eligble to vote to ensure each area is getting equal representation. Those people ineligble can always apply for citizenship....no country in the world allows non citizens to vote in their national elections as far as I know
Oh FFS. Can you not understand how this works and that this was introduced to favour the party that introduced it? No amount of sophistry will alter that. Even if you have a point about census dodgers, which is disputable, this was not the motivating factor. As for non-citizens voting, knock yourself out on https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8985/ but that is really a separate matter.
I did not say not voters were voting. What I said it would distort constituencies where some had a lot less voters than others. No country takes non voters into account for their democracy.
Amusing thing I learnt today. Since the London Eye gained popularity when it opened for the Millennium as then the world's largest ferris wheel, and sparked a global revival of the popularity of ferris wheels, different countries have followed in creating their own and having a game of one-upmanship to claim the record of the largest.
Spot the odd one out:
1999/2000 - UK - 135m 2006 - China - 160m 2008 - Singapore - 167m 2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m 2022 - Russia - 140m
Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.
Rather enjoying the rants by @MaxPB on the previous thread about the consequences of the policies the party he has supported. Broadly agree that the Tories are currently doing damn all for the young (or anyone else really). But the reason they've been in power for so long - and repeatedly - is because people like him voted for them.
Anyway I am sure he will be delighted if Labour brings in a wealth tax on expensive London property and higher taxes for those on 6-figure incomes from the City.
Never mind all that.
A beach. A 13-year old dog. Sunshine.
Simple pleasures.
Meh. Came back from a month gallivanting around the world to find I’d accidentally switched my freezer off.
Not what I’d planned for this afternoon
Oh bugger! We did that once, with a fridge-freezer. No matter how much cleaning you do, and no matter how good the enzyme cleaners, it’s toast. Admit this early, throw it away and claim on your insurance.
It’s built in…
Built in just means it's got the facility to mount a matching panel on the front. You can demount that and reuse it on areplacement, if you have to.
It’s about 20 years old and a bunch of work to fill the space
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
It would be interesting to know where it is being watched. Is this having as big as an influence on Americans, or is the effect spread out across English speaking nations? Is your typical twitter user more or less likely to vote in the US election than a TV news viewer?
I'm not suggesting the numbers aren't impressive; just that the political impact might be fairly small.
Incidentally, what is Fox News' position on Ukraine?
Amusing thing I learnt today. Since the London Eye gained popularity when it opened for the Millennium as then the world's largest ferris wheel, and sparked a global revival of the popularity of ferris wheels, different countries have followed in creating their own and having a game of one-upmanship to claim the record of the largest.
Spot the odd one out:
1999/2000 - UK - 135m 2006 - China - 160m 2008 - Singapore - 167m 2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m 2022 - Russia - 140m
Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.
Russia only sought to beat us.
What is it with Russia and the UK?
Are you suggesting ferris wheels are a penis substitute?
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
Because it’s funny and winds you up
Well I’m afraid to say it’s failing. I’m standing here on a sublime late summer evening, and feeling the opposite of “wound up”
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
Doug, you've hit rock bottom, Leon is accusing you of a flailing ad hominem,
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.
What unions were we in that prevented us being sovereign in that time? And how did that prevent us being sovereign?
To define sovereign, I am defining that as us being able to pass our own laws and not having others pass laws for us instead.
Within the EU, in areas of EU competence, the EU Parliament and EU Commission passed laws not the British Parliament and British Government. They were sovereign.
Now the British Parliament and British Government passes laws. As has been the case for England/Britain/the UK almost all its entire history, even when we were in unions with other nations laws were still determined by either our own monarch, or our own government, or our own Parliament, not third parties.
Amusing thing I learnt today. Since the London Eye gained popularity when it opened for the Millennium as then the world's largest ferris wheel, and sparked a global revival of the popularity of ferris wheels, different countries have followed in creating their own and having a game of one-upmanship to claim the record of the largest.
Spot the odd one out:
1999/2000 - UK - 135m 2006 - China - 160m 2008 - Singapore - 167m 2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m 2022 - Russia - 140m
Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.
Russia only sought to beat us.
What is it with Russia and the UK?
Are you suggesting ferris wheels are a penis substitute?
Amusing thing I learnt today. Since the London Eye gained popularity when it opened for the Millennium as then the world's largest ferris wheel, and sparked a global revival of the popularity of ferris wheels, different countries have followed in creating their own and having a game of one-upmanship to claim the record of the largest.
Spot the odd one out:
1999/2000 - UK - 135m 2006 - China - 160m 2008 - Singapore - 167m 2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m 2022 - Russia - 140m
Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.
Russia only sought to beat us.
What is it with Russia and the UK?
Are you suggesting ferris wheels are a penis substitute?
Pretty much being used that way.
And dickless Putin is obsessed with us.
Perhaps we should start a gofundme page for putins viagra
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
Doug, you've hit rock bottom, Leon is accusing you of a flailing ad hominem,
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Amusing thing I learnt today. Since the London Eye gained popularity when it opened for the Millennium as then the world's largest ferris wheel, and sparked a global revival of the popularity of ferris wheels, different countries have followed in creating their own and having a game of one-upmanship to claim the record of the largest.
Spot the odd one out:
1999/2000 - UK - 135m 2006 - China - 160m 2008 - Singapore - 167m 2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m 2022 - Russia - 140m
Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.
Russia only sought to beat us.
What is it with Russia and the UK?
Russia is jealous because Britain invented communism, with Marx and Engels based here.
I believe the aforementioned military maps have also annoyed India in respect of Ladakh and some of the areas up in the Himalayas which were fought over in 1962 and where tensions occasionally run high. I didn't realise India's border with China (albeit in sections) was almost as long as Russia's.
I do wonder if a future Russian leader with more political nous than Putin will see the benefit of reviving the old alliance with India - this was counterbalanced by Chinese support for Pakistan.
Perhaps the long-held assumption the 21st century would be the "Asian Century" are wrong inasmuch as the assumptions were based on the rise of China - perhaps more accurate may be the rise of India as a global economic power perhaps emerging as a rival to China across Asia, Africa and elsewhere.
The 3 major economic powers of the 21st century will be China, the US and India in terms of overall gdp. Russia likely won't be in the top 10 economically
Russia wasn’t in the top 10 even before the invasion
Amusing thing I learnt today. Since the London Eye gained popularity when it opened for the Millennium as then the world's largest ferris wheel, and sparked a global revival of the popularity of ferris wheels, different countries have followed in creating their own and having a game of one-upmanship to claim the record of the largest.
Spot the odd one out:
1999/2000 - UK - 135m 2006 - China - 160m 2008 - Singapore - 167m 2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m 2022 - Russia - 140m
Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.
Russia only sought to beat us.
What is it with Russia and the UK?
Russia is jealous because Britain invented communism, with Marx and Engels based here.
Not our proudest moment...now if countries claimed reparation for that I would have some sympathy
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
Because it’s funny and winds you up
Well I’m afraid to say it’s failing. I’m standing here on a sublime late summer evening, and feeling the opposite of “wound up”
London looking good from Primrose Hill
The British Montmartre. Or would Hampstead be a better fit?
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
It would be interesting to know where it is being watched. Is this having as big as an influence on Americans, or is the effect spread out across English speaking nations? Is your typical twitter user more or less likely to vote in the US election than a TV news viewer?
I'm not suggesting the numbers aren't impressive; just that the political impact might be fairly small.
Incidentally, what is Fox News' position on Ukraine?
Fox is mixed up about Ukraine. Like the GOP. Some are gung ho to “stop the Russians”, others are near enough pro Putin
I agree it would be fascinating to see where these Twitter impressions have come from for the Orban interview. Arguably it doesn’t matter if Carlson is getting tiny numbers here or there if he is successfully talking to the chatty political elite everywhere - which is what TwitterX represents
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
The beer gardens of Baden-Wurttemburg are heaving with punters enjoying the seriously warm evening that I hope you’ll be getting tomorrow. And it looks like at least a week fk hot weather thereafter. I was going to go hiking tomorrow but may have to reconsider, or start very early.
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
The idea we weren't sovereign pre-Brexit is also absurd.
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
The idea we weren't sovereign pre-Brexit is also absurd.
Dont be daft....its like saying while you are in a marriage...I am actually still single because I can get a divorce
The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.
Xi is an absolute clown.
And extremely dangerous for it. By the end of the decade I should think he will be worrying even more about his place in history and what his period as Emperor has achieved.
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
It would be interesting to know where it is being watched. Is this having as big as an influence on Americans, or is the effect spread out across English speaking nations? Is your typical twitter user more or less likely to vote in the US election than a TV news viewer?
I'm not suggesting the numbers aren't impressive; just that the political impact might be fairly small.
Incidentally, what is Fox News' position on Ukraine?
"what is Fox News' position on Ukraine?"
Have to consult the weather-vane atop Rupert's favorite out-house for an answer, of sorts.
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
Because it’s funny and winds you up
Well I’m afraid to say it’s failing. I’m standing here on a sublime late summer evening, and feeling the opposite of “wound up”
London looking good from Primrose Hill
The British Montmartre. Or would Hampstead be a better fit?
Probably Hampstead, since Primrose Hill never had a very bohemian flavour, save Sylvia Plath and her gas oven.
If Tucker Carlson does land a Putin interview (and it’s the obvious next move) that would be mega cat::pigeons
It would give Putin a chance to explain himself and his actions to the entire world, with a not-entirely hostile interviewer with an enormous platform - most of the political world, 400m Twitter users worldwide
Before PB has a breakdown I’m not saying this is necessarily a good thing, just that I can see it making absolute sense for Carlson and Musk
Not quite convinced it would be work for Putin however. He doesn’t speak good English. He’s very stiff. He might come across as the deranged Russian Hitler, after all
There are some quite prominent rumours on Twitter that Tucker Carlson is going to interview Putin
THAT would be a pretty profound moment in media. If he got 125m “views” on Twitter for Orban, what would he get for Putin?
We could be looking at the emergence of the alt right Parky.
I certainly look forward to Tucker Carlson telling pensioners on daytime tv adverts that they can get a free pen if they enquire about life insurance and a free clock radio alarm if they take it out. Coincidentally both are items that Trump will find useful in a prison cell.
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
The idea we weren't sovereign pre-Brexit is also absurd.
Dont be daft....its like saying while you are in a marriage...I am actually still single because I can get a divorce
The EU is a voluntary organisation of sovereign states. Armed with this mundane fact we have no need for comparisons to one's marital status.
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
Because it’s funny and winds you up
Well I’m afraid to say it’s failing. I’m standing here on a sublime late summer evening, and feeling the opposite of “wound up”
London looking good from Primrose Hill
The British Montmartre. Or would Hampstead be a better fit?
Probably Hampstead, since Primrose Hill never had a very bohemian flavour, save Sylvia Plath and her gas oven.
Neither is really montmartre. Hampstead has nearly always been wealthy - montmartre was colonised by artists partly coz it was so poor
Primrose was once rather poor (“smoketown”) but never that boho - as you say
Camden is probably a better match for montmartre. Was once deeply poor and has long been bohemian (and still is to an extent) but lacks the sense of height. Tho it does have the canals and locks
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.
You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.
People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.
Does anyone else find it amusing, that Stanford Junior University and University of California at Berkeley, are now members for sporting purposes, of the Atlantic Coast Conference?
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
The idea we weren't sovereign pre-Brexit is also absurd.
Dont be daft....its like saying while you are in a marriage...I am actually still single because I can get a divorce
The EU is a voluntary organisation of sovereign states. Armed with this mundane fact we have no need for comparisons to one's marital status.
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
To be fair, I thought it was shit.
Carlson was just delighted to find someone who'd like to suck Putin's **** harder than he would, and spent over 20 minutes fawning over him.
The only good bit was that it was at least an interview that was a real conversation, free of platitudes and soundbites, and basically respectful with no-one interrupting each other.
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
Misleading title, because if you read the article it isn't talking about voters, it's talking about population, which is not the same thing.
Have you not understood the thrust of the piece?
Cameron and Osborne gerrymandered, yes gerrymandered, constituencies in their favour by basing seat boundaries on registered voters not eligible voters, the upshot is rather a significant perceived unfair benefit for the Tories at General Elections. The article is clear why it was done, and the names supporting the notion are not unserious people.
I know any significant unfair advantage to ensure a Tory win floats your boat, but you can't disregard the article just because you don't like the conclusion.
Basing constituency sizes upon registered voters is not aome evil innovation on the part of the Conservatives, but rather, how it has been done since universal suffrage became a thing. Equal representation was among the demands of the Chartists.
You clearly haven't read the article.
Perhaps we've read different articles. I've read the article, and Kellner's.
This has been the system since 1948. Guess who was in power then.
The Conservatives are unlikely to derive very much electoral benefit from the changes.
The cake is sliced using unpartisan rules and, if you don't get the votes, you don't win seats.
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
Because it’s funny and winds you up
Well I’m afraid to say it’s failing. I’m standing here on a sublime late summer evening, and feeling the opposite of “wound up”
London looking good from Primrose Hill
The British Montmartre. Or would Hampstead be a better fit?
Probably Hampstead, since Primrose Hill never had a very bohemian flavour, save Sylvia Plath and her gas oven.
Neither is really montmartre. Hampstead has nearly always been wealthy - montmartre was colonised by artists partly coz it was so poor
Primrose was once rather poor (“smoketown”) but never that boho - as you say
Camden is probably a better match for montmartre. Was once deeply poor and has long been bohemian (and still is to an extent) but lacks the sense of height. Tho it does have the canals and locks
I also thought of Camden, which spans from Dickens to Doris Lessing by way of Walter Sickert.
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.
Xi is an absolute clown.
It's also unwise.
China is not omnipotent and he doesn't (or shouldn't) want all those countries to implicitly ally with the US against him, because they'd outgun him economically and politically, even with China's size.
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.
You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.
People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.
He’s trolling you, and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.
Does anyone else find it amusing, that Stanford Junior University and University of California at Berkeley, are now members for sporting purposes, of the Atlantic Coast Conference?
They watched the UK join the Trans Pacific Partnership and thought that geography was now passé.
The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.
Xi is an absolute clown.
It's also unwise.
China is not omnipotent and he doesn't (or shouldn't) want all those countries to implicitly ally with the US against him, because they'd outgun him economically and politically, even with China's size.
That’s my point though. China is NOT hyper-puissant and on some level needs the cooperation of neighbours.
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.
You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.
People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.
He’s trolling you, and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.
The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.
Xi is an absolute clown.
It's also unwise.
China is not omnipotent and he doesn't (or shouldn't) want all those countries to implicitly ally with the US against him, because they'd outgun him economically and politically, even with China's size.
Both China and Russia have made a few unforced errors recently. As of course has the US/Japan/Europe too.
The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.
Xi is an absolute clown.
When I pointed out, before the current Russian assault on Ukraine, that both Russia and China were successors states to pieces, intent on carrying on the Imperialism, and doing so, one poster said that
“If you call China and Russia empires then that takes away any meaning from the word”
Or near enough.
Both have irredentist, ethno-fascist governments who think that running everything ever touched by their previous empires is their right.
The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.
Xi is an absolute clown.
It's also unwise.
China is not omnipotent and he doesn't (or shouldn't) want all those countries to implicitly ally with the US against him, because they'd outgun him economically and politically, even with China's size.
That’s my point though. China is NOT hyper-puissant and on some level needs the cooperation of neighbours.
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
123 million views is fuck all. The Baby Shark Dance has 13.29 billion views. Either everyone on the planet has watched it twice or, more likely, a number of people have watched it a load of times.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a significant proportion of the Carlson/Orban views were not you pleasuring yourself over and over at the authoritarian soft-core fash that you get off on these days.
Lol. Ok
Why does stuff like this get people so puce-faced and ANGRY?
Why resort to this flailing ad hominem?
To be fair, I thought it was shit.
Carlson was just delighted to find someone who'd like to suck Putin's **** harder than he would, and spent over 20 minutes fawning over him.
The only good bit was that it was at least an interview that was a real conversation, free of platitudes and soundbites, and basically respectful with no-one interrupting each other.
It was refreshingly high minded and sans interruptions
Orban came out of it quite well, I thought. That doesn’t mean he’s a nice guy. He’s probably a racist thug. It does mean he has serious political skills
Carlson does sometimes tend to fawn, I agree, but then I reckon he’d argue that’s the only way you can land interviews with demagogues
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
That's my point - people get in a huff if the government make any sort of intervention. Tough shit - if you want a public health service, don't cut it off at the knees.
At least in private health care you can get rewarded of you are a healthy weight with lower premiums.
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.
Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.
You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.
People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.
He’s trolling you, and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.
I think he means it.
No, I’m trolling you, because taking the piss out of right wing loons like you who have a heart attack whenever anyone challenges their comfortable, boring, white y-front, white bread, white everything view of the world is incredibly satisfying. And easy. You fall for it every time. Like most Tories you have no sense of humour, irony, or decency.
I don’t think Britishness exists though. You’re right about that. We’re a rag tag collection of ethnicities and nationalities coming apart at the seams.
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days
A feeling best dealt with by travelling the world, staying in fancy hotels like the one I’m in currently, and getting paid for it (like I’m sadly not).
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
That's my point - people get in a huff if the government make any sort of intervention. Tough shit - if you want a public health service, don't cut it off at the knees.
At least in private health care you can get rewarded of you are a healthy weight with lower premiums.
Fat people over their lifetime have lower health care costs and tend to die earlier saving on pension costs. Fat people are a net benefit as are smokers and drinkers for lifetime costs to the state. It is healthy fucks cost us most
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.
Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously
The Vitality program from Prudential ( part of their private health insurance offering) proved massively successful - do exercise, meet health goals, get freebies.
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days
A feeling best dealt with by travelling the world, staying in fancy hotels like the one I’m in currently, and getting paid for it (like I’m sadly not).
Every man has two countries - his own, and France. (Benjamin Franklin).
If Tucker Carlson does land a Putin interview (and it’s the obvious next move) that would be mega cat::pigeons
It would give Putin a chance to explain himself and his actions to the entire world, with a not-entirely hostile interviewer with an enormous platform - most of the political world, 400m Twitter users worldwide
Before PB has a breakdown I’m not saying this is necessarily a good thing, just that I can see it making absolute sense for Carlson and Musk
Not quite convinced it would be work for Putin however. He doesn’t speak good English. He’s very stiff. He might come across as the deranged Russian Hitler, after all
Well - just again thinking Parky because that's the gold standard and probably what Carlton is aiming for - what often happens is somebody does well who you would expect to tank. That's the art of the host. To make the guest (Putin in this case) relax and be their best self. To tease out their wittiest, most urbane observations and anecdotes. If this alt right media guy is all you crack him up to be he'll be able to do this.
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days
A feeling best dealt with by travelling the world, staying in fancy hotels like the one I’m in currently, and getting paid for it (like I’m sadly not).
I’ve stayed in that hotel. For me it was free and I was indeed paid to stay there. Sorry
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.
Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously
People like me? Who?
FYI I thought May's "dementia tax" was the kind of balls we need from our politicians and have been pissed with Corbyn ever since for his opposition to it.
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.
Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously
The Vitality program from Prudential ( part of their private health insurance offering) proved massively successful - do exercise, meet health goals, get freebies.
The pru though have a very narrow focus....studies have shown the unhealthy livers cost less in healthcare over a lifetime on healthcare, that is before you count in pensions. The pru I am assuming focusses on you living longer because they pay out less depending on the age you die
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.
Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously
People like me? Who?
FYI I thought May's "dementia tax" was the kind of balls we need from our politicians and have been pissed with Corbyn ever since for his opposition to it.
I was a fan but you are certainly on the left which is what I meant by people like you
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
Hard to say. The NHS was set up with three branches: hospitals; GPs; public health. But the Cameron government hived off public health and gave it to local councils, so the question of regions got lost.
It's madness that we have a state health service but make no attempt to reduce the demand on it. We just accept huge rates of obesity as a given and ask frontline workers to take the hit. That's why primary healthcare spending is increasing so much.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
So go on tell us how you want us to deal with obesity without being authoritarian
I actually agree with you personal responsibility is a thing, however anytime people suggest it people like you complain. Unemployed....maybe you should move somewhere cheaper to live so you arent such a burden on the public purse...oh no support networks, living in a house larger that you need and claiming housing benefit....oh no bedroom tax....got dementia and need to be in a home....oh no dementia tax.
Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously
People like me? Who?
FYI I thought May's "dementia tax" was the kind of balls we need from our politicians and have been pissed with Corbyn ever since for his opposition to it.
I was a fan but you are certainly on the left which is what I meant by people like you
Like most PBers, I have a mix of views and don't fit in a little box. I tend to agree with PB Tories on a lot of stuff, including nemesis BR on COVID lockdowns.
Just finished another eleven hour shift, so up to sixty hours hours since the Bank Holiday. I think I’ll get to seventy-five for the week after working tomorrow and Monday
I popped into Waitrose on the way and got cheap dinner (a minted pea and bacon quiche for £1.39!). On my way in, I saw Peter Mandelson at the checkout (buying sushi and what looked like stir fry ingredients). I’ve known for years that he lives nearby, but it’s the first time I’ve seen him
Just finished another eleven hour shift, so up to sixty hours hours since the Bank Holiday. I think I’ll get to seventy-five for the week after working tomorrow and Monday
I popped into Waitrose on the way and got cheap dinner (a minted pea and bacon quiche for £1.39!). On my way in, I saw Peter Mandelson at the checkout (buying sushi and what looked like stir fry ingredients). I’ve known for years that he lives nearby, but it’s the first time I’ve seen him
When I was planning my foodie roadtrip I was able to choose the dates, to an extent, and I opted for the first week in September because, psychologically, it generally seems to be sunny then, even if the rest of the summer has been dreck. Like the weather gods cruelly troll us - as soon as the kids go back into school, out comes the sun
Now, I am sure that in reality this is bollocks. Statistically it is likelier to be sunner and warmer the closer you are to the sunniest/warmest times of the year - either midsummer (if you mean sheer hours of daylight), or late July/early August (when we traditonally get the highest temps)
Yet this perception is lodged in my mind. "The first week or two of Sept are weirdly good"
A strange glitch
There is also something about warm days and evenings in September being infinitely nicer than in August or July. I’ve always put it down to the light, it’s a bit softer and less stark in September. I find sitting outside a pub in September infinitely more enjoyable than July and August too, must be purely psychological that it’s not “summer”.
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
Yes. Also good weather in September feels like a pleasing bonus. Whereas good weather in July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
But also the slight melancholy that goes with the urgency. There is only a finite amount of summer left (the sun is already below the treetops in suburban Romford). It is enjoyable, but we must enjoy it while it lasts.
Oh for sure. But I feel that about life in general these days
A feeling best dealt with by travelling the world, staying in fancy hotels like the one I’m in currently, and getting paid for it (like I’m sadly not).
I’ve stayed in that hotel. For me it was free and I was indeed paid to stay there. Sorry
This view is free although I’m not being paid to see it, alas.
The Tucker Carlson/Viktor Orban interview has now had 123 million "views"
If just 1 in 10 of the people who view it go on to click through and watch a bit, or a lot, or all, of the video, that means 12 million viewers
That would be three times Carlson's average rating on Fox News when he was the most popular host there
What is your point? They are both still a pair of ****s.
Because this is potentially a transformative if not revolutionary moment in news media - upending the way it has long been delivered and consumed
You can imagine lots of people at Fox, BBC, CNN, the NYT etc are looking at those numbers and feeling distinctly queasy
But we knew that anyway, and one of the concerns with a Bond villain taking over Twitter would be the idea of supercharging unregulated fake news. I don't think media outlets should be concerned more than those of us who don't want Bond villains picking and choosing our representatives.
So we should ignore this event and its major ramifications - because it involves people you don’t like?!
I didn't say that at all. I said we should all be concerned as democrats.
The new Chinese map attempts to take bits from Russia, Japan, Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Bhutan and Vietnam.
Xi is an absolute clown.
It's also unwise.
China is not omnipotent and he doesn't (or shouldn't) want all those countries to implicitly ally with the US against him, because they'd outgun him economically and politically, even with China's size.
That’s my point though. China is NOT hyper-puissant and on some level needs the cooperation of neighbours.
Finished early because the exam hall was at risk of collapse.
On topic- it would be interesting to see the split by current views of Brexit. Are the blue to red switchers more Bregretters, or Confident Leavers (Brexit is fine and not in peril)?
I suspect that most people (who, bizarrely, don’t read PB) have largely forgotten about it. We are out and it has not proved as transformational as some promised but neither have any of the downsides manifested themselves. The revisals of our GDP earlier this week removed the final remnants of the “economic disaster “ claim but they also showed that we are doing no better than average. We want a government that can do better and it doesn’t appear to be this one.
Er .... the UK is not "out". Not by a long shot, if you are in impexp. HMG still hasn't sorted out customs. Partly, reportedly, for fear of the effect on inflation.
And the impact on the "united" bit of the UK remains to be seen, notably but not only in NI.
The UK is out, 100% out.
As a sovereign and independent country it is entirely up to us whether or how we choose to "sort out" customs.
We could choose to waive customs checks from here until eternity, and we'd remain out, that's the point of sovereignty we get to choose what our priorities are rather than having another institution determine what our priorities and checks are.
r "We don't really need to worry about all those things we Brexiters were going on and on about for decades" isn't entirely a convincing argument.
Especially when sovereignty over a large chunk of the former UK has been signed away in part.
Except customs checks on EU imports weren't something Brexiteers were going on and on about for decades.
I couldn't care less if those checks are waived indefinitely. So long as the UK can implement its own laws domestically, I have no objections whatsoever to recognising EU imports as an equivalence while not being bound to EU laws.
"We want to be different from the Europeans" *means* customs checks, at the most fundamental level. To stop all those nasty foreign jars of stuff measured in kg, for instance.
Pretending you don't want them is just not a reasonable argument.
No, it doesn't.
I can drive a Right Hand Drive vehicle that is different to Europeans Left Hand Drive vehicles, even if others import and drive Left Hand Drive vehicles.
Or I can choose to buy goods measured in kg even if others choose to buy goods measured in lb.
No reason that can't apply to other goods and services too.
We can have our own domestic standards that we apply, and if people aren't happy with that and import foreign standards, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.
"One size fits all" is one of the worst things about the EU. When the EEC began it was about recognising standards as equivalents, not unifying them, a return to that is to be welcomed.
More choice. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
The problem is that we are European. Leaving the EU was like Rhode Island leaving the US. That is the only reason why we haven't, as we are required to do by international treaty, put up customs posts. "Sovereignty" is, and always has been, a myth. As soon as we are reunited with the rest of our country the better.
That's not a problem, because its not true.
We are European as in the continent, we are no more European as in EU than Canadians are "Americans".
The UK isn't Rhode Island, the UK is Canada.
As a sovereign country its our choice whether we put up customs posts or not, we are not obliged to do so. Many countries choose not to.
We are not, and have never been, a “Sovereign Country”. Parliament claims to be sovereign, but can only assert that as a result of a Dutch Invasion of England. Sure, it was an invasion by RSVP, but an invasion nonetheless. Many invasions happen after a faction asks for intervention, and you can be sure that if William had failed we’d be celebrating it now.
Britain, or more specifically England, has never been able to operate in a purely sovereign manner. We have always, throughout our history, been part of larger unions. We act at the behest of other European nations, always have, always will. Placing outside the formal structures of the EU doesn’t change that, just gives the government less influence on the decisions that affect us. People who say we are “sovereign” make about as much sense as Freemen on the Land types
What a load of codswallop.
England, or Britain post-union, has been sovereign for almost all of its existence.
Yes we have foreign relations. Always have, always will. So does Canada, who incidentally still have our monarch.
The idea we're not sovereign post-Brexit, because we have foreign relations, is utterly absurd. We don't act at the best of other European nations, we act at the behest of our own voters, and our own politicians.
Even in the EU, we were typically on foreign relations closer aligned to our closest allies like America, than to other European nations. Which is why pooling sovereignty in foreign relations within the EU was such a terrible idea and one that never worked for us.
When, exactly, has Britain been sovereign? As far as I can tell we have been part of unions for all of that time. The U.K. has not been sovereign since it was formed.
You seem to be genuinely barking, sniff at any sense of British nationhood and sovereignty, and actually believe we've deserted a United States of Europe that you sincerely cherish.
People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.
He’s trolling you, and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.
I think he means it.
No, I’m trolling you, because taking the piss out of right wing loons like you who have a heart attack whenever anyone challenges their comfortable, boring, white y-front, white bread, white everything view of the world is incredibly satisfying. And easy. You fall for it every time. Like most Tories you have no sense of humour, irony, or decency.
I don’t think Britishness exists though. You’re right about that. We’re a rag tag collection of ethnicities and nationalities coming apart at the seams.
You seem remarkably angry about everything, and expect others to respond in kind, whilst exhibiting the bigotry you suspect others harbour as well. However, in your case you think it's justified - which is why you make things unnecessarily personal - and those factors, as well as your final paragraph, show you actually mean it.
Misleading title, because if you read the article it isn't talking about voters, it's talking about population, which is not the same thing.
Have you not understood the thrust of the piece?
Cameron and Osborne gerrymandered, yes gerrymandered, constituencies in their favour by basing seat boundaries on registered voters not eligible voters, the upshot is rather a significant perceived unfair benefit for the Tories at General Elections. The article is clear why it was done, and the names supporting the notion are not unserious people.
I know any significant unfair advantage to ensure a Tory win floats your boat, but you can't disregard the article just because you don't like the conclusion.
I thought basing seats on registered voters long predated Cameron. Indeed it is mentioned as already being in existence in the Political Parties, Elections and. Referendums Act (PPERA) 2000 passed by Blair.
It did. It was brought in by Attlee's government.
There was a debate during the Cameron years to make the system of drawing constituencies more equitable using numbers for eligible rather than registered voters was proposed. Cameron declined. Cameron's earlier beef had been that the 2005 election had been inequitable in Labour's favour, which by a quirk of electoral mathematics was true.
You cannot deny that Cameron gamed the system and likewise the introduction of ID was not to resolve a significant problem, but to again game the system to the Conservatives' advantage.
If you believe a system which substantially and unfairly benefits the Conservatives is fine, well so be it.
Comments
Xi is an absolute clown.
Spot the odd one out:
1999/2000 - UK - 135m
2006 - China - 160m
2008 - Singapore - 167m
2021 - United Arab Emirates - 250m
2022 - Russia - 140m
Successive nations have known the sizes of their predecessors and tried to pip out the largest to gain the record, Singapore only narrowly doing so but doing so nonetheless. UAE smashing it.
Russia only sought to beat us.
What is it with Russia and the UK?
I'm not suggesting the numbers aren't impressive; just that the political impact might be fairly small.
Incidentally, what is Fox News' position on Ukraine?
London looking good from Primrose Hill
To define sovereign, I am defining that as us being able to pass our own laws and not having others pass laws for us instead.
Within the EU, in areas of EU competence, the EU Parliament and EU Commission passed laws not the British Parliament and British Government. They were sovereign.
Now the British Parliament and British Government passes laws. As has been the case for England/Britain/the UK almost all its entire history, even when we were in unions with other nations laws were still determined by either our own monarch, or our own government, or our own Parliament, not third parties.
And dickless Putin is obsessed with us.
“Support us in issue X or Y or we might come after territory Z, like Putin, but with much better weapons and the worlds biggest navy”
What Xi is, is a classic authoritarian bully. A geopolitical Mafioso. Labelling him a clown diminishes the menace
It’s the part of the year where it’s getting darker earlier but also everyone wears better clothes in the UK as people dress terribly in the British Summer. Adult men dressed like children in t-shirts and shorts and all the women wearing exactly the same outfit, flowery dress and denim jacket. Grim.
It is a long read looking at the reasons for different life expectancy in different regions of the US. The regions are based on historical settlers.
The conclusion is that the differences derive from long term public health measures; the result of those deep underlying historic principles. New York comes top (or New Netherland as the region is called).
I'm not sure whether there is any read across to the UK given our national health service. Is there are differences between the public health focus in the UK regions?
I agree it would be fascinating to see where these Twitter impressions have come from for the Orban interview. Arguably it doesn’t matter if Carlson is getting tiny numbers here or there if he is successfully talking to the chatty political elite everywhere - which is what TwitterX represents
Have to consult the weather-vane atop Rupert's favorite out-house for an answer, of sorts.
It would give Putin a chance to explain himself and his actions to the entire world, with a not-entirely hostile interviewer with an enormous platform - most of the political world, 400m Twitter users worldwide
Before PB has a breakdown I’m not saying this is necessarily a good thing, just that I can see it making absolute sense for Carlson and Musk
Not quite convinced it would be work for Putin however. He doesn’t speak good English. He’s very stiff. He might come across as the deranged Russian Hitler, after all
Primrose was once rather poor (“smoketown”) but never that boho - as you say
Camden is probably a better match for montmartre. Was once deeply poor and has long been bohemian (and still is to an extent) but lacks the sense of height. Tho it does have the canals and locks
People like you explain precisely why the Leave vote was so high, and not a fringe affair.
Carlson was just delighted to find someone who'd like to suck Putin's **** harder than he would, and spent over 20 minutes fawning over him.
The only good bit was that it was at least an interview that was a real conversation, free of platitudes and soundbites, and basically respectful with no-one interrupting each other.
July/august feels like your birthright (which is too often denied!!)
Also, let’s face it, the kids and young families have largely gone, so everything is calmer and quieter
The cake is sliced using unpartisan rules and, if you don't get the votes, you don't win seats.
I appreciate that people don't like being told what to do but we need much more muscular government interventions if we want a NHS that doesn't collapse under its own success - a complete nullification of personal responsibility.
China is not omnipotent and he doesn't (or shouldn't) want all those countries to implicitly ally with the US against him, because they'd outgun him economically and politically, even with China's size.
China is NOT hyper-puissant and on some level needs the cooperation of neighbours.
But Xi is just pissing them all off instead.
“If you call China and Russia empires then that takes away any meaning from the word”
Or near enough.
Both have irredentist, ethno-fascist governments who think that running everything ever touched by their previous empires is their right.
Orban came out of it quite well, I thought. That doesn’t mean he’s a nice guy. He’s probably a racist thug. It does mean he has serious political skills
Carlson does sometimes tend to fawn, I agree, but then I reckon he’d argue that’s the only way you can land interviews with demagogues
At least in private health care you can get rewarded of you are a healthy weight with lower premiums.
Perhaps when people like you stop attacking things where people like me are suggesting people should take responsibility I will take people like you seriously
I don’t think Britishness exists though. You’re right about that. We’re a rag tag collection of ethnicities and nationalities coming apart at the seams.
Bagnols, Macon, north of Lyon
NEW THREAD
FYI I thought May's "dementia tax" was the kind of balls we need from our politicians and have been pissed with Corbyn ever since for his opposition to it.
I popped into Waitrose on the way and got cheap dinner (a minted pea and bacon quiche for £1.39!). On my way in, I saw Peter Mandelson at the checkout (buying sushi and what looked like stir fry ingredients). I’ve known for years that he lives nearby, but it’s the first time I’ve seen him
Shapps is actually a pretty good communicator, and should be Minister for the Today Programme or some such.
I suspect Coutinho, looking at her CV, is also a shit appointment for “Energy Security”, but let’s see.
You cannot deny that Cameron gamed the system and likewise the introduction of ID was not to resolve a significant problem, but to again game the system to the Conservatives' advantage.
If you believe a system which substantially and unfairly benefits the Conservatives is fine, well so be it.