Outside of suburban London I doubt there will be any local issues as significant as ULEZ. However Tory MPs may benefit a bit from incumbency
Green belt. Migrant camps. (Will Portland vote Tory again? Though note it's carefully at one end of Mr Drax's constituency.) Schools made with RAAC and other dodgy stuff.
Now the RAAC list is out @HYUFD, is it still as disproportionately am Essex problem? If the knowns and unknowns scaled up, it looked like a sizeable chunk of schooling capacity could be wiped out in the county and unitaries.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
One of the ultimate ironies of 1914 is that the Navy was far better prepared than it might have been but for Erskine Childers writing The Riddle of the Sands. This was take so seriously by some in Government - not least Churchill - that the threat of German domination of the 'German Sea' as it was still commonly known up to WW1was recognised and countered prior to the war.
The irony comes from the fact that he was later executed for his opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and was described by Churchill as a monstrous individual.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
Come along - the RN simply didn't know what it should so in 1914 - and probably doing nothing was the right call.
Distant blockade worked like clockwork and was vital to the eventual defeat of Germany in WWI
Bottling up the German surface navy was step one in this.
You're right. It was all about deterrence. If there had been a significant naval action then the floodgates would have been opened.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
Number of years ago, there was a guy in an apartment in my humble building, who was cooking meth.
Watched fire-fighters carrying his little boy down the stairs and out the front door, the day the apartment got raided (his not mine).
In USA there are laws - fed, state and mostly local - governing what constitutes nuisance or worse.
In my equally humble experience, in gritty urbanity (relieved in Seattle by lots of trees and other flora) most effective sanction re: excessive noise or other crapola, is complaining to the landlord.
BTW & FYI, most of the other tenants are students. And on whatever scale, I'm likely rowdier than they!
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
Much of it is just bring short term lets in line with long term rental agreements - safety tests, registration etc.
STLs literally destroyed the life of one of my friends. Was forced to move back in with their parents, sold their flat. Had 6 of them in their tenement.
How does a STL "literally destroy" anyone's life?
Have you ever tried to learn the Standard Template Library? It takes what is already a complex language built on top of a bodged, historic mess and expands it in all sorts of wonderful random directions.
The STL is literally destroying the sanity of a friend who's having to learn 'modern' C++ at the moment...
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
One of the ultimate ironies of 1914 is that the Navy was far better prepared than it might have been but for Erskine Childers writing The Riddle of the Sands. This was take so seriously by some in Government - not least Churchill - that the threat of German domination of the 'German Sea' as it was still commonly known up to WW1was recognised and countered prior to the war.
The irony comes from the fact that he was later executed for his opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and was described by Churchill as a monstrous individual.
I think I'd struggle to see why the Navy should have been quite as unprepared as it was,
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
One of the ultimate ironies of 1914 is that the Navy was far better prepared than it might have been but for Erskine Childers writing The Riddle of the Sands. This was take so seriously by some in Government - not least Churchill - that the threat of German domination of the 'German Sea' as it was still commonly known up to WW1was recognised and countered prior to the war.
The irony comes from the fact that he was later executed for his opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and was described by Churchill as a monstrous individual.
I think I'd struggle to see why the Navy should have been quite as unprepared as it was,
Unprepared for what? Within a very short time of the war starting the surface was clear of German warships, using the previously prepared plans.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
An undercover police officer used his fake identity to deceive a woman into a 19-year relationship in which they became partners and had a child together, the Guardian can reveal.
The officer concealed his real identity from the woman for the duration of that period, never telling her his real occupation, and using his fictitious identity on the birth certificate of their son.
In 2020, after the couple were engaged to be married, the woman discovered that her fiance, whom she believed to be a businessman, was in fact a police officer who had subjected her to a sophisticated deception lasting almost two decades.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is investigating senior officers at Avon and Somerset police, who knew about the undercover officer’s relationship with the woman as far back as 2013.
They appear to have waited at least seven years before informing the woman that the person she knew as her fiance had been using a fake identity given to him for use in covert police operations. In a statement, the IOPC confirmed it was investigating the case.
The woman, whom the Guardian is referring to as “Mary” to protect her identity, does not want to speak publicly about the experience. However, her relatives say that she is “a shadow of the person we used to know”.
“This whole thing has broken her,” Mary’s sister said. “She has expressed suicidal thoughts. She cries daily. She does not sleep. She is really fearful.”
News of the deception has upended the entire family’s lives. “Our dad, the stress of this has destroyed his health. This has put him in hospital. My mum is on antidepressants, she can’t sleep at night. We can’t talk about this to anybody, not even with our own children,” Mary’s sister added. “It’s broken us as a family.”
Mary’s family accuse Avon and Somerset police of bullying and threatening them over the last three years in an effort to discourage them from speaking to the press.
Senior police, they say, warned them that if the public were to become aware of the 19-year relationship the revelation could spark riots. However, Mary’s family now believe this and other warnings were used to co-opt them into a “cover-up” of the scandal.
This is amazing stuff, and they keep coming up, including all the leftish ones who were taken in for years by undercover cops. To most of the rest of us, even making allowances for the fact that all men are liars (says so in the Psalms so must be true), and all women are capable of self deception and even bright ones can be remarkably dim, this seems impossible for both parties.
Amor caecus est; and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I'm scared that one day my wife will discover that when she thinks I'm working, I'm actually hanging out on PB.
It suggests the "just be yourself" advice may not be all its cracked up to be.
After missing it originally, thanks to an unplanned trip abroad, have now finally booked tickets to see the Oppenheimer movie on Friday. Annoyed to have missed the IMAX screenings though.
Doing a double-header with Sound of Freedom, rather than Barbie.
Fuck. Take a cushion and wear compression socks, [assuming you're watching one after the other]
This is the point where I remind you that Equalizer 3 is only 109 minutes
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
Utterly futile. The Supreme Court will dismiss such a bar 6-3
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. Again.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court will dismiss it by more than that, quite possibly 9-0, because the argument is weak.
People slightly overstate the partisan aspect of the US courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It's certainly true that they follow different judicial doctrines such that it's reasonable to talk about a liberal group and a conservative group. But they are actually, in general, trying to get a legally correct answer.
For example, Roberts and Kavanagh recently voted to require Alabama to redraw a Congressional map that was advantageous to the GOP but appeared in breach of the Voting Rights Act. Away from the Supreme Court, conservative, Trump appointed judges were among those to dismiss out of hand all the many misconceived cases brought by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.
I may be wrong on this, and I know those pushing it has recruited a few constitutional lawyers who can't be airily dismissed as total cranks, but the legal argument for disqualifying Trump under the 14th amendment looks pretty weak to me, and I'm very far from convinced the three liberals will bite.
People grossly understate the political nature of SCOTUS. It's really quite partisan, and the individual justices have their own political and social axes to grind that are sometimes not closely aligned to parties.
They also are pretty much unaccountable in practice, a rather unequal branch of government.
Their partisan arguments are usually better expressed, because they are intelligent jurists, and as you note not perfectly aligned with the parties of the day - longevity and power explaining that - but very much present. They point it out bluntly to each other in minority judgements, as political opinion overrides any judicial reasoning.
On this particular case I'd bet it goes nowhere, but not because Trump 'must be defeated at the ballot box'. That'd be nice but is bollocks, as it's often used in a way to claim immunity from legal consequence.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
After missing it originally, thanks to an unplanned trip abroad, have now finally booked tickets to see the Oppenheimer movie on Friday. Annoyed to have missed the IMAX screenings though.
Doing a double-header with Sound of Freedom, rather than Barbie.
Fuck. Take a cushion and wear compression socks, [assuming you're watching one after the other]
This is the point where I remind you that Equalizer 3 is only 109 minutes
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
Utterly futile. The Supreme Court will dismiss such a bar 6-3
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. Again.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court will dismiss it by more than that, quite possibly 9-0, because the argument is weak.
People slightly overstate the partisan aspect of the US courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It's certainly true that they follow different judicial doctrines such that it's reasonable to talk about a liberal group and a conservative group. But they are actually, in general, trying to get a legally correct answer.
For example, Roberts and Kavanagh recently voted to require Alabama to redraw a Congressional map that was advantageous to the GOP but appeared in breach of the Voting Rights Act. Away from the Supreme Court, conservative, Trump appointed judges were among those to dismiss out of hand all the many misconceived cases brought by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.
I may be wrong on this, and I know those pushing it has recruited a few constitutional lawyers who can't be airily dismissed as total cranks, but the legal argument for disqualifying Trump under the 14th amendment looks pretty weak to me, and I'm very far from convinced the three liberals will bite.
Check out the Paxton impeachment trial in Austin, now being broadcast live from Texas state senate chamber.
The AG has got himself a slick lawyer, with the mouse and (maybe) the nous, to prove it.
Today he been engaged in cross examining first witness, a former assistant state AG who was one who blew the whistle on Paxton. Early days, but so appears to be on fishing expedition without many fish to show for it.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
Pointing out that the adverts your company is spending money on are alongside things you don't want to be associated with is a useful warning for many companies.
Got to say that the only adverts I see on Twitter are drop ship scams, Crypto scams and more recently people trying to get newsletter signups so they can then sell you their scams...
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
A liberal group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit to bar former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado, arguing he is ineligible to run for the White House again under a rarely used clause in the U.S. Constitution aimed at candidates who have supported an “insurrection.”
The lawsuit, citing the 14th Amendment, is likely the initial step in a legal challenge that seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
It will jolt an already unsettled 2024 primary campaign that features the leading Republican candidate facing four separate criminal cases.
Utterly futile. The Supreme Court will dismiss such a bar 6-3
Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box. Again.
Personally, I think the Supreme Court will dismiss it by more than that, quite possibly 9-0, because the argument is weak.
People slightly overstate the partisan aspect of the US courts, particularly the Supreme Court. It's certainly true that they follow different judicial doctrines such that it's reasonable to talk about a liberal group and a conservative group. But they are actually, in general, trying to get a legally correct answer.
For example, Roberts and Kavanagh recently voted to require Alabama to redraw a Congressional map that was advantageous to the GOP but appeared in breach of the Voting Rights Act. Away from the Supreme Court, conservative, Trump appointed judges were among those to dismiss out of hand all the many misconceived cases brought by the Trump campaign following the 2020 election.
I may be wrong on this, and I know those pushing it has recruited a few constitutional lawyers who can't be airily dismissed as total cranks, but the legal argument for disqualifying Trump under the 14th amendment looks pretty weak to me, and I'm very far from convinced the three liberals will bite.
Check out the Paxton impeachment trial in Austin, now being broadcast live from Texas state senate chamber.
The AG has got himself a slick lawyer, with the mouse and (maybe) the nous, to prove it.
Today he been engaged in cross examining first witness, a former assistant state AG who was one who blew the whistle on Paxton. Early days, but so appears to be on fishing expedition without many fish to show for it.
Addendum - note that this is Republican versus Republican, with Paxton, Trump and their ilk labeling less-obliging GOPers as "RHINOS".
Since I'd assume they're in no danger of losing the state hopefully they follow through and decide bad conduct is still bad when done by your own side.
After missing it originally, thanks to an unplanned trip abroad, have now finally booked tickets to see the Oppenheimer movie on Friday. Annoyed to have missed the IMAX screenings though.
Doing a double-header with Sound of Freedom, rather than Barbie.
Fuck. Take a cushion and wear compression socks, [assuming you're watching one after the other]
This is the point where I remind you that Equalizer 3 is only 109 minutes
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
As long as there are affordable options for people who want to be away from the anxiety and noise, then yes, why should I care? Homes are not fungible so it makes sense for people to want a certain amount of control over their immediate environment.
Just to explain: I don't live in central Edinburgh. So no skin off my nose personally, and it's a complete waste of time for Barty to give his knee-jerk response of NIMBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But friends and colleagues do live there. And I'm horrified.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
Come along - the RN simply didn't know what it should so in 1914 - and probably doing nothing was the right call.
Distant blockade worked like clockwork and was vital to the eventual defeat of Germany in WWI
Bottling up the German surface navy was step one in this.
You're right. It was all about deterrence. If there had been a significant naval action then the floodgates would have been opened.
I think that is now the conventional view.
Jellicoe might possibly have destroyed the German fleet at Jutland had he taken a chance, but there was no need to and the consequences had it gone wrong were unthinkable.
As it was the German fleet was bottled up for the duration, which was fine for us, and contributed significantly to eventual success.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
While PBers will understand the significance of regional vs constituency (the latter balances out the effects of the former, within reason and for larger parties), I'm surprised that the voters are that discriminating, with a big jump in SNP support for the latter and a big drop for the former. What might be the explanation (given that it's the same people answering the same poll)?
Don't voters in Scotland cast separate votes for MSP by constituency AND region? And have been doing so over number of elections?
Which would seem to go a looooooooong way in explaining polling differences, since many voters are used to voting for one party's candidate at constituency level, but another at regional level.
And may well be planning to do so again at next GE. Or doing so for the first time.
Certainly. But how do you account for the same voters deciding to surge support by one method and crash it by another?
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
And? Is it not OK if its not 'organic? Isn't X itself about helping people coordinate?
He can be salty about it, sure, that's his right, but it comes down to a whinge people are mean about him and that's not very compelling.
People try to put on pressure all the time, usually it fails.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
Do you think Twitter's offer to advertisers post takeover was as good as it was beforehand?
I just got a new job. Chap who bought my firm in April, it emerges, was making fast and loose with with £65m of the client account of the various firms he acquired. The SRA were investigating him when he bought my firm (a storied name in shipping law), and another one 2 months later, yet approved both sales. If you want “not fit for purpose” stories that one takes some beating,
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
As long as there are affordable options for people who want to be away from the anxiety and noise, then yes, why should I care? Homes are not fungible so it makes sense for people to want a certain amount of control over their immediate environment.
Just to explain: I don't live in central Edinburgh. So no skin off my nose personally, and it's a complete waste of time for Barty to give his knee-jerk response of NIMBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But friends and colleagues do live there. And I'm horrified.
Its their choice to live there, and its others choice to let short term or long term there. Free choice, free society.
If you don't like your choices, make different choices. Don't complaain about the choices others are making.
If you're opposed to zoning for tourism, then let any and every home that its owner wants to let out do so instead and let the free market resolve it.
New defence secretary Grant Shapps confuses RAF with Royal Navy on second week of job while speaking to LBC
Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari at Breakfast on Wednesday, the new defence secretary described the UK's aircraft carriers as being "the largest carriers the RAF has ever had".
This is incorrect, as aircraft carriers are built and operated by the Royal Navy, rather than the RAF.
It was not the only slip-up Mr Shapps made on Wednesday as he settles into his new role - his fifth in 12 months.
Technically, the carriers carry aircraft, and the RAF F-35 squadrons do fly off the current carriers (as well as those between the wars, by the way). So I'm not sure Mr Shapps is wrong ... though how this ties in with RN/FAA crews for the planes I have no idea, as the FAA *also* have squadrons of the things. .
(How the orficers in crab fat uniforms cope with sitting to drink the loyal toast I have no idea. But DA will be able to advise, I am sure.)
"RAF F-35 squadrons"
You make them sound far more numerous than they are. Realistically most of defence spending is about seeming to have a capability.
I doubt the MoD could in reality fly a kite. Nonetheless in times of war they do have a decent core to call upon.
This is not new - in 1914 and 1939 the UK was a complete shambles as to readiness. In both cases the RN with the biggest spend was the least prepared (This just in my view).
In 1914 the Royal Navy was rather well prepared for dealing with the German fleet. Which spent much of the war trying to avoid its jailers… the submarine problem was as a result of that success.
In 1939 the biggest problem was that Hitler started the war before he was ready - the RN was building towards being 100% ready in 1941, given the German plan to be ready in 1942.
Come along - the RN simply didn't know what it should so in 1914 - and probably doing nothing was the right call.
Distant blockade worked like clockwork and was vital to the eventual defeat of Germany in WWI
Bottling up the German surface navy was step one in this.
You're right. It was all about deterrence. If there had been a significant naval action then the floodgates would have been opened.
I think that is now the conventional view.
Jellicoe might possibly have destroyed the German fleet at Jutland had he taken a chance, but there was no need to and the consequences had it gone wrong were unthinkable.
As it was the German fleet was bottled up for the duration, which was fine for us, and contributed significantly to eventual success.
I think that the admiralty engaged in an improper cowardice. Perhaps it was seen to be right after the fact, but it was a shameful act.
I just got a new job. Chap who bought my firm in April, it emerges, was making fast and loose with with £65m of the client account of the various firms he acquired. The SRA were investigating him when he bought my firm (a storied name in shipping law), and another one 2 months later, yet approved both sales. If you want “not fit for purpose” stories that one takes some beating,
Hmm. If they hadn't found him guilty (or whatever it is they do to blackball a chap), could they actually block him? Not guilty till ... But IANAE.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
I just got a new job. Chap who bought my firm in April, it emerges, was making fast and loose with with £65m of the client account of the various firms he acquired. The SRA were investigating him when he bought my firm (a storied name in shipping law), and another one 2 months later, yet approved both sales. If you want “not fit for purpose” stories that one takes some beating,
I just got a new job. Chap who bought my firm in April, it emerges, was making fast and loose with with £65m of the client account of the various firms he acquired. The SRA were investigating him when he bought my firm (a storied name in shipping law), and another one 2 months later, yet approved both sales. If you want “not fit for purpose” stories that one takes some beating,
That's wonderful, Doug, not least because it confirms that despite all the obvious difficulties it is possible for a hard-working Seal to make it in business today.
That hamster wheel is either photographed very close up or else is for a very large hamster. Where are Fathers Dougal and Ted when you need an opinion on an important matter?
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Because this AirBNB depopulation is a very new phenomenon. Free market, right? Your favourite free market.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
Free speech and free assembly means people are free to orchestrate campaigns, yes.
So what?
Advertising isn't organic either, Twitter isn't organic. If you want organic, get into niche farming, don't run a free speech business as a free speech absolutist then cry that others said things you don't like.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
And? Is it not OK if its not 'organic? Isn't X itself about helping people coordinate?
He can be salty about it, sure, that's his right, but it comes down to a whinge people are mean about him and that's not very compelling.
People try to put on pressure all the time, usually it fails.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Because this AirBNB depopulation is a very new phenomenon. Free market, right? Your favourite free market.
Life is all about change. Evolution happens.
If the facts change, you need to handle them.
You're free to make your own choices. Don't see any reason others can't do the same.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
And? Is it not OK if its not 'organic? Isn't X itself about helping people coordinate?
He can be salty about it, sure, that's his right, but it comes down to a whinge people are mean about him and that's not very compelling.
People try to put on pressure all the time, usually it fails.
Is it not ok to put pressure on pressure groups?
Seems like the only thing that's being done is broadcasting "look how good a job the ADL is doing and how much strength they wield, don't be like us and piss them off".
I'm not entirely sure why the ADL would think someone they were campaigning about saying "its so unfair, this campaign hurt us" is something they should be disappointed about.
I just got a new job. Chap who bought my firm in April, it emerges, was making fast and loose with with £65m of the client account of the various firms he acquired. The SRA were investigating him when he bought my firm (a storied name in shipping law), and another one 2 months later, yet approved both sales. If you want “not fit for purpose” stories that one takes some beating,
I just got a new job. Chap who bought my firm in April, it emerges, was making fast and loose with with £65m of the client account of the various firms he acquired. The SRA were investigating him when he bought my firm (a storied name in shipping law), and another one 2 months later, yet approved both sales. If you want “not fit for purpose” stories that one takes some beating,
I thought it £64 million.
Saw that story on ROF.
The freezing order said £64,584,904.60. I was rounding up.
I have deliberately chosen a firm that is never in RoF. The old shop has barely been out of it for 18-months. I want boring.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Because this AirBNB depopulation is a very new phenomenon. Free market, right? Your favourite free market.
Life is all about change. Evolution happens.
If the facts change, you need to handle them.
You're free to make your own choices. Don't see any reason others can't do the same.
Those figures result in a workable Indy majority, but with Scottish Greens having double their seats - a real nightmare scenario given their track record as a junior partner/ influencer. 4% would put Alba close to 3 regional seats.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
And? Is it not OK if its not 'organic? Isn't X itself about helping people coordinate?
He can be salty about it, sure, that's his right, but it comes down to a whinge people are mean about him and that's not very compelling.
People try to put on pressure all the time, usually it fails.
Is it not ok to put pressure on pressure groups?
Have you ever encountered a pressure group that has anything to say beyond their love of their leader?
If the leader is Black and Female then it's just free money.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
Firstly, orchestrated boycotts are clearly legal.
Secondly, who is doing the orchestrating? Who is the head of this (legal) conspiracy?
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
"Will Post Office execs continue to be given bonuses for their Inquiry work? .................................................................................................................................... In other words, yes. Despite the massive outcry, the questions in parliament, the publication of two formal reports, the Chief Executive being forced into a series of grovelling and humiliating apologies, the Post Office is still offering bonuses to its staff for their work on the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Of course it is."
I am pro the banning of these dogs and anti the bringing back of wolves. That seems consistent.
I was slightly anti the bringing back of wolves until something I said on here prompted someone to ask whether I was a wolf-introducer, and I couldn't resist the label.
I can claim some experience with wolves here having helped someone herd a pack of them at reading wolf sanctuary. True they were only semi wild and somewhat used to humans in their vicinity but they were in an open paddock and out numbered the two humans 3 to 1. It wasn't as scary as a lot of these dogs
Yes, I have a photo of a wolf in a Hungarian sanctuary looking at me more adoringly than any human ever has...
Perhaps he had a recipe for nick palmer he wanted to try out. In my case we were on foot and no fences between us...my own fault however wasnt a situation I expected
Idly though of posting my wolf porn, but I see cut/paste of photos doesn't work. How does one post pix on PB?
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Because this AirBNB depopulation is a very new phenomenon. Free market, right? Your favourite free market.
Life is all about change. Evolution happens.
If the facts change, you need to handle them.
You're free to make your own choices. Don't see any reason others can't do the same.
Helpful hint Viz style: your arguments re free "choice" would be a tad more convincing if you hadn't made the "choice" to pick the same username as one of the worst mass murdering, thieving and generally asocial libertarians in British maritime history.
Oh bore on.
Pirates are fun.
I put some thought into the name I chose. The pirate I chose the name of is quite an interesting one of note, who is famous for amongst other things coming up with a pirate code and has inspired much of fiction, including Dread Pirate Roberts, being referenced in Treasure Island and so on. The oft-referenced to the code that 'is more guidelines than actual rules' was created by Roberts in PotC too.
I'm not ashamed of my choice. Any such murder was hundreds of years ago and pirates have become fun since then and I stand by that. Get a sense of humour if you're that prickly over stuff centuries ago.
While PBers will understand the significance of regional vs constituency (the latter balances out the effects of the former, within reason and for larger parties), I'm surprised that the voters are that discriminating, with a big jump in SNP support for the latter and a big drop for the former. What might be the explanation (given that it's the same people answering the same poll)?
History. The last few Holyrood elections have shown the SNP list votes are a bit of a waste, with them sweeping a lot of constituencies.
SNP constituency voters are saying they might vote Green to maximise pro-Indy MSPs. That will comprise people with SNP VI and people who would prefer Green but know they might not stand in their constituency.
If your main aim is indy, it's a no brainer to pick SNP/Green in the constituency/list.
Not necessarily - a couple of points swing to Alba (I know, I know) could increase the Indy side by a few more seats and reduce Green influence. That would make for interesting times…
On topic, let's consider the 1992 election and polling in the run up to it: Labour's peak lead mid-term was comparable to Starmer's now, but within 18 months of the election things were neck and neck.
We are now, at most, under 17 months from the next election. More likely closer to 12. And there is no sign of anything similar happening. The government is stumbling from crisis to crisis without any clear alternative narrative.
Starmer enthuses very few people, but he scares even fewer. He been ruthless in removing the far-left from his team, while being very careful about too many spending pledges. The absence of fear is key: if everyone agrees the Tories are useless, then why not give the other lot a chance if they appear mostly harmless?
What the Tories did in Uxbridge was find something (ULEZ) that motivated the fear response, which was likely decisive in a close race.
So unless the Tories can nail Starmer over something that gets national attention, my view is they are toast. I expect a surprisingly sizable Labour majority.
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting you. Your position was that the areas Russia had invaded should have a referendum. When the stupidity of that position was pointed out, you recently said that a peace deal should give Russia the areas they have (*) without a referendum.
"But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line."
That's *exactly* giving Russia what they want at the moment. A pause to rearm and prepare.
(*) Without stating whether that's the area they control, or the areas they *claim* in the rather interesting laws they passed.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
Firstly, orchestrated boycotts are clearly legal.
Secondly, who is doing the orchestrating? Who is the head of this (legal) conspiracy?
Twitter lives on advertising, advertisers are essentially lying manipulators, E Musk is excellent at self publicity and does well out of advertising. They all richly deserve each other.
When Twitter dies we can all go back to writing letters and speaking via cocoa tins with string. Little will be lost.
That hamster wheel is either photographed very close up or else is for a very large hamster. Where are Fathers Dougal and Ted when you need an opinion on an important matter?
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting you. Your position was that the areas Russia had invaded should have a referendum. When the stupidity of that position was pointed out, you recently said that a peace deal should give Russia the areas they have (*) without a referendum.
"But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line."
That's *exactly* giving Russia what they want at the moment. A pause to rearm and prepare.
(*) Without stating whether that's the area they control, or the areas they *claim* in the rather interesting laws they passed.
No, I favour a referendum in each area as the long-term outcome, as in Slesvig-Holstein. There is, as I've said, an argument about whether people who've fled or arrived get to vote in the new or old place. But anyway it's clearly a long way to agreement on that. In the meantime, I favour a ceaasefire on the current line.with Ukraine allowed to join NATO so that we can guarantee no further incursion without triggering WW3.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Because this AirBNB depopulation is a very new phenomenon. Free market, right? Your favourite free market.
The reality as I see it is that the built environment is becoming more and more regulated in almost every sphere, it is vanishingly unlikely that it will move towards any kind of 'free market' situation as desired above. Any new 'freedom' comes with conditions that are more arduous than what existed previously. The process just seems to be inexorable.
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
A ceasefire on the current line is giving Russia what it wants. They get to keep the land they've stolen by force and they get to keep their stolen Crimea, they get to keep their stolen "land bridge" to Crimea.
That's like saying in 1940 while the Nazis occupied France and almost all of western Europe "I don't want to give the Nazis what they want, but favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line".
And if we let Russia keep their current line in a ceasefire then all that does is send out a message that changing borders via warfare is perfectly acceptable in our eyes, just get in quick and brutally and get the job done and we'll not stand up to you.
If you want to stop war, if you want to oppose borders being changed by invasions, then we need to ensure that all of Ukraine is liberated and Russia doesn't get to keep any of it.
I am pro the banning of these dogs and anti the bringing back of wolves. That seems consistent.
I was slightly anti the bringing back of wolves until something I said on here prompted someone to ask whether I was a wolf-introducer, and I couldn't resist the label.
I can claim some experience with wolves here having helped someone herd a pack of them at reading wolf sanctuary. True they were only semi wild and somewhat used to humans in their vicinity but they were in an open paddock and out numbered the two humans 3 to 1. It wasn't as scary as a lot of these dogs
Yes, I have a photo of a wolf in a Hungarian sanctuary looking at me more adoringly than any human ever has...
Perhaps he had a recipe for nick palmer he wanted to try out. In my case we were on foot and no fences between us...my own fault however wasnt a situation I expected
Idly though of posting my wolf porn, but I see cut/paste of photos doesn't work. How does one post pix on PB?
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting you. Your position was that the areas Russia had invaded should have a referendum. When the stupidity of that position was pointed out, you recently said that a peace deal should give Russia the areas they have (*) without a referendum.
"But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line."
That's *exactly* giving Russia what they want at the moment. A pause to rearm and prepare.
(*) Without stating whether that's the area they control, or the areas they *claim* in the rather interesting laws they passed.
No, I favour a referendum in each area as the long-term outcome, as in Slesvig-Holstein. There is, as I've said, an argument about whether people who've fled or arrived get to vote in the new or old place. But anyway it's clearly a long way to agreement on that. In the meantime, I favour a ceaasefire on the current line.with Ukraine allowed to join NATO so that we can guarantee no further incursion without triggering WW3.
There was a referendum. They voted to be part of Ukraine.
There is no justification for allowing invaders to do acts of conquest, acts of genocide and repopulation, and then hold referendums afterwards. That's not democratic.
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting you. Your position was that the areas Russia had invaded should have a referendum. When the stupidity of that position was pointed out, you recently said that a peace deal should give Russia the areas they have (*) without a referendum.
"But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line."
That's *exactly* giving Russia what they want at the moment. A pause to rearm and prepare.
(*) Without stating whether that's the area they control, or the areas they *claim* in the rather interesting laws they passed.
No, I favour a referendum in each area as the long-term outcome, as in Slesvig-Holstein. There is, as I've said, an argument about whether people who've fled or arrived get to vote in the new or old place. But anyway it's clearly a long way to agreement on that. In the meantime, I favour a ceaasefire on the current line.with Ukraine allowed to join NATO so that we can guarantee no further incursion without triggering WW3.
Referena are perfectly fine tools up until the moment of invasion. After that, the assumption must be that the aggressor should gain nothing.
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Because this AirBNB depopulation is a very new phenomenon. Free market, right? Your favourite free market.
The reality as I see it is that the built environment is becoming more and more regulated in almost every sphere, it is vanishingly unlikely that it will move towards any kind of 'free market' situation as desired above. Any new 'freedom' comes with conditions that are more arduous than what existed previously. The process just seems to be inexorable.
That's what's being pushed at the moment - there will undoubtedly be an equal and opposite reaction, and an adjustment will follow.
As with the deposit return scheme, and the alcohol advertising legislation, this is another piece of fucked up freedom-hating economy-destroying legislation from the Scottish Government, who are currently flushing themselves down the loo with grim determination.
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting you. Your position was that the areas Russia had invaded should have a referendum. When the stupidity of that position was pointed out, you recently said that a peace deal should give Russia the areas they have (*) without a referendum.
"But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line."
That's *exactly* giving Russia what they want at the moment. A pause to rearm and prepare.
(*) Without stating whether that's the area they control, or the areas they *claim* in the rather interesting laws they passed.
No, I favour a referendum in each area as the long-term outcome, as in Slesvig-Holstein. There is, as I've said, an argument about whether people who've fled or arrived get to vote in the new or old place. But anyway it's clearly a long way to agreement on that. In the meantime, I favour a ceaasefire on the current line.with Ukraine allowed to join NATO so that we can guarantee no further incursion without triggering WW3.
But holding a referendum now is pointless, because Russia can import 'Russian' people, and ethnic cleanse anyone they don't like into the heart of Russia. At best. Talk of a 'referendum' is basically shorthand for 'let Russia have it', as there's zero chance of it being free and fair.
Nick, your position on this conflict has always been poor, from saying we should not 'poke' Russia into invading, to blaming NATO's eastwards expansion, to Ukrainian Nazis, to Bandera. I see lots of soft pro=Russian views, but absolutely no concern for the Ukrainians who are being put through Hell because of their invasion by a fascist, imperialist state.
You may want to read the thread I posted earlier this evening, then ask how, with good conscience, you can ask to subject Ukrainians to Russian mistreatment.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
Pointing out that the adverts your company is spending money on are alongside things you don't want to be associated with is a useful warning for many companies.
Got to say that the only adverts I see on Twitter are drop ship scams, Crypto scams and more recently people trying to get newsletter signups so they can then sell you their scams...
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
The situation in Ukraine seems to be one which a lot of active posters behave in a tribal way, you have to agree completely with them or else you are out of the tribe. This just prevents useful discussion of it, it is true for other areas as well. If you think in this way - complete victory or nothing, good vs evil, light vs dark... then you aren't really going to develop much real insight in to issues, or be very good at predicting what is going to happen in the world.
Parody Rishi Sunak @Parody_PM Under the current school rebuilding programme, only 4 schools have been completed in the last two years. If we continue at the same rate, all 22,000 schools should be finished in just over 11,000 years time
Parody Rishi Sunak @Parody_PM Under the current school rebuilding programme, only 4 schools have been completed in the last two years. If we continue at the same rate, all 22,000 schools should be finished in just over 11,000 years time
Coincidentally that is about the time when the Tories are due back in Government
I'm against planning permission in principle, so I don't support a requirement to seek permission for change of use - even if such a change may in this occasion result in more housing, something I support, I'd rather not require change of use either way.
But that language is just . . . seriously beyond words.
I disagree re planning permission. There is a huge issue for the local people in Edinburgh and the touristy parts of the Lothians, where for instance central Edinburgh has a big problem with noise and disruption (flats, remember) on top of the difficulty of finding homes. Hoiw would you like an airBNB above your flat with a stag or hen party every other weekend and in between as well?
But I agree re the language. It is rather reminiscewnt of the Fringe luvvies and the relevant companmy owners indignant that they couldnt' so easily hire flats because the locals couldn't be so easily evicted all of a sudden for August.
If I didn't want stag parties in the flat above me, I wouldn't live in a town centre flat with a flat above me.
What if the flat above is rented by party animals? Or students? Or Leon? Or anyone else who loves to have parties each weekend or in-between?
If you want a quiet abode, then maybe the suburbs might suit better than city centre flats? Just a thought.
Come off it. You know perfectly well that tthere is a big difference. At least with the same neighbour there is some scope for taking enforcement action.
Which is why I don't choose to live in a flat.
Your argument just seems to be pure NIMBYism. I'm sorry, but my view on NIMBYs doesn't change when its about STLs instead of being about construction.
What other people do with their flat should be up to them. If you don't like it, don't choose to live in a flat, if you do you're making a conscious choice to have communal areas or possibility of sound.
"Choose" isa a very libertatrian word. Not everyone has the same choices as you.
And not everyone wants to see their home towns erased and given the Southwold-cum-Marbella treatment.
Everyone should have the same choices, that's the point of libertarianism.
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
If you have a home but you don't want to live in a holiday complex that's not pulling up the drawbridge.
Hypocrisy would be hating Airbnb next door and then using Airbnb when you go to Barcelona. Just not wanting a constant stream of short-term visitors in the flats above, below, left, right, and opposite is a perfectly understandable goal given the unarguable fact that people behave differently on holiday compared to around their own home.
Reflecting upon it, I suppose I've always argued for a zoning policy, and if that were done so that you had zones for residential and zones for tourism, then that would be a reasonable compromise?
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
Not acceptable at all. That would destroy whole swathes of central Edinburgh as functioning communities. Even you would complain if someone came along and declared ytour house a tourist area.
Why would I?
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
Right, imagine having to move. At your own expense. Miles away. At a time like nbow where the price has crashed and you are in negative equity, your mother is nearby to help out, your granny is nearby in a home, your children are at school, and ...
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
If you choose to move, you have to handle the consequences of your choice, yes.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Because this AirBNB depopulation is a very new phenomenon. Free market, right? Your favourite free market.
The reality as I see it is that the built environment is becoming more and more regulated in almost every sphere, it is vanishingly unlikely that it will move towards any kind of 'free market' situation as desired above. Any new 'freedom' comes with conditions that are more arduous than what existed previously. The process just seems to be inexorable.
That's what's being pushed at the moment - there will undoubtedly be an equal and opposite reaction, and an adjustment will follow.
As with the deposit return scheme, and the alcohol advertising legislation, this is another piece of fucked up freedom-hating economy-destroying legislation from the Scottish Government, who are currently flushing themselves down the loo with grim determination.
It isn't totally impossible, but I just think it is highly improbable in the foreseeable future. There is a rapidly increasing amount of regulation in almost every sphere. All attempts to stop this trend have been shelved - and this is a conservative government that claimed to be in favour of deregulation.
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
The situation in Ukraine seems to be one which a lot of active posters behave in a tribal way, you have to agree completely with them or else you are out of the tribe. This just prevents useful discussion of it, it is true for other areas as well. If you think in this way - complete victory or nothing, good vs evil, light vs dark... then you aren't really going to develop much real insight in to issues, or be very good at predicting what is going to happen in the world.
Light or dark exists. Shining a light, or turning lights on is real. Darkness is real, and there's times and places for it.
Good and evil are real too.
Putin's invasion is evil. That's not outrageous to say, its true. Read the stories linked above, it is brutal, it is bloody, it is wrong and it is evil.
If your response to evil happening is to say "oh well 🤷♂️" then that's your choice. But others disagreeing are perfectly within their rights to disagree.
On topic, let's consider the 1992 election and polling in the run up to it: Labour's peak lead mid-term was comparable to Starmer's now, but within 18 months of the election things were neck and neck.
We are now, at most, under 17 months from the next election. More likely closer to 12. And there is no sign of anything similar happening. The government is stumbling from crisis to crisis without any clear alternative narrative.
Starmer enthuses very few people, but he scares even fewer. He been ruthless in removing the far-left from his team, while being very careful about too many spending pledges. The absence of fear is key: if everyone agrees the Tories are useless, then why not give the other lot a chance if they appear mostly harmless?
What the Tories did in Uxbridge was find something (ULEZ) that motivated the fear response, which was likely decisive in a close race.
So unless the Tories can nail Starmer over something that gets national attention, my view is they are toast. I expect a surprisingly sizable Labour majority.
That graph is quite instructive. Dumping the increasingly toxic Thatcher and her hated Poll tax, on favour of the bland, charisma free Major* switched the poll lead to a photo finish.
The Tories have now ditched 2 Prime Ministers this Parliament, with negligible effect. The writing is on the wall for Sunak.
*bland, charisma free, facing down his head bangers and frightening no one. The Tory Starmer?
While I was reading about ancient local monuments yesterday, I kept noticing the name of an archaeologist who seems to have written about all of them. He shares the same name as one of my near neighbours
Funnily enough I had a parcel to deliver to him today, and it turns out he is the very same archaeologist I was reading about yesterday! We had a nice chat about the local sites, about my recent trip to Carnac, and about how I should buy his book from the shop at Avebury or Stonehenge when I walk to them
While I was reading about ancient local monuments yesterday, I kept noticing the name of an archaeologist who seems to have written about all of them. He shares the same as one of my near neighbours
Funnily enough I had a parcel to deliver to him today, and it turns out he is the very same archaeologist I was reading about yesterday! We had a nice chat about the local sites, about my recent trip to Carnac, and about how I should buy his book from the shop at Avebury or Stonehenge when I walk to them
On topic, let's consider the 1992 election and polling in the run up to it: Labour's peak lead mid-term was comparable to Starmer's now, but within 18 months of the election things were neck and neck.
We are now, at most, under 17 months from the next election. More likely closer to 12. And there is no sign of anything similar happening. The government is stumbling from crisis to crisis without any clear alternative narrative.
Starmer enthuses very few people, but he scares even fewer. He been ruthless in removing the far-left from his team, while being very careful about too many spending pledges. The absence of fear is key: if everyone agrees the Tories are useless, then why not give the other lot a chance if they appear mostly harmless?
What the Tories did in Uxbridge was find something (ULEZ) that motivated the fear response, which was likely decisive in a close race.
So unless the Tories can nail Starmer over something that gets national attention, my view is they are toast. I expect a surprisingly sizable Labour majority.
That graph is quite instructive. Dumping the increasingly toxic Thatcher and her hated Poll tax, on favour of the bland, charisma free Major* switched the poll lead to a photo finish.
The Tories have now ditched 2 Prime Ministers this Parliament, with negligible effect. The writing is on the wall for Sunak.
*bland, charisma free, facing down his head bangers and frightening no one. The Tory Starmer?
Though even before Major arrived on the scene, the gap was closing steadily through Summer 1990. Amazing, really.
But amazing things do happen. And next year either the Conservatives will claw back their position starting now to deny Labour a majority (pretty amazing) or Labour will overturn a big Conservative majority and replace it with one of their own (also pretty amazing).
On topic, on Sunday I will also be doing a piece on why I think a Labour majority is unlikely.
Real view or a devils advocate?
Real view based on real numbers.
I look forward to it then. See if you can shake my (opposite) view.
Your worried though aren't you? You are worried that when the electorate collectively looks at Labour they realise that the chances of "things can only get better" under Labour are a ridiculous pipedream. It is about as possible as SKS ever becoming unboring.
Labour always fucks the economy because they splurge money at the public sector that fails to improve it, whilst simultaneously stymying growth in the productive sector through increased taxation and unnecessary regulation. It was forever thus. A lot of the population know this. If there is such a thing as the wisdom of the crowds, Labour will get no overall control and hold office for about 4 years while the Tories regroup and cleanse themselves of the Boris Johnson scurvy.
You are recycling tired old tropes. But, yes, although my betting persona isn't worried, my political one is. Or put another way, my head is confident but my heart isn't. So much painful history.
I suppose they are tropes in the strictest definition, so I am glad you recognise as such, viz, a significant or recurrent theme. In Labour's case it is a significant or recurrent theme that they always fuck the economy. No significant organisation would ever put a bunch of lower middle managers in executive positions. That is what the country does, each time they put Labour in government.
Considering your team has been in government twice as long as anyone else, I don't see that they come out smelling of roses on the economy. In 1964 things were bad. Wilson's mistake was he didn't devalue sooner, much sooner. There is some good work by Cairncross's daughter (Frances) on this. 1979 was chaos, but anecdotally Heath's bequeathed legacy in 1974 hadn't been much better. Throughout Thatcher and Major's premierships we lurched from boom to bust and back again. The new Labour years were relatively benign and economic growth was better than it has been since. The 2008 world credit crisis has been styled as of Gordon Brown's making, and the rules are the incumbent takes the blame for a crisis on their watch. Liam Byrne's letter didn't help.
How has the economy fared since your government committed economic hara kiri in 2016?
And regards to Birmingham, which has a legacy issue of equal pay to contend with, remind me of the several Conservative authorities who have gone through the hoop in the last 5 years.
A good thing I'm not still an MP, eh? I claimed earlier that I had a picture of a wolf looking fondly at me, and wanted to show it. But I'm not sure how to post jpgs here.
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting you. Your position was that the areas Russia had invaded should have a referendum. When the stupidity of that position was pointed out, you recently said that a peace deal should give Russia the areas they have (*) without a referendum.
"But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line."
That's *exactly* giving Russia what they want at the moment. A pause to rearm and prepare.
(*) Without stating whether that's the area they control, or the areas they *claim* in the rather interesting laws they passed.
No, I favour a referendum in each area as the long-term outcome, as in Slesvig-Holstein. There is, as I've said, an argument about whether people who've fled or arrived get to vote in the new or old place. But anyway it's clearly a long way to agreement on that. In the meantime, I favour a ceaasefire on the current line.with Ukraine allowed to join NATO so that we can guarantee no further incursion without triggering WW3.
But holding a referendum now is pointless, because Russia can import 'Russian' people, and ethnic cleanse anyone they don't like into the heart of Russia. At best. Talk of a 'referendum' is basically shorthand for 'let Russia have it', as there's zero chance of it being free and fair.
Nick, your position on this conflict has always been poor, from saying we should not 'poke' Russia into invading, to blaming NATO's eastwards expansion, to Ukrainian Nazis, to Bandera. I see lots of soft pro=Russian views, but absolutely no concern for the Ukrainians who are being put through Hell because of their invasion by a fascist, imperialist state.
You may want to read the thread I posted earlier this evening, then ask how, with good conscience, you can ask to subject Ukrainians to Russian mistreatment.
Ukraine may well be forced to a ceasefire at some point, leaving a lot of territory and people in Russian hands, but whilst there's some people who are rather flippant about any risks of escalation, there are a larger group of people who seem so keen for 'peace' (or rather, returning to a cold war), that that is worth any cost. That 'peace' now must automatically be better than fighting now. In essence, that no situation of fighting can be worth doing. I think even us armchair generals would say no one can really judge when fighting on is unsustainable other than those doing the fighting, but the implication seems to be that Ukraine being aided to do so is instinctively wrong because fighting is wrong.
I also don't quite understand the idea of 'ceasefire on the current line with Uraine allowed to join NATO'. For one, surely that makes it a permanent settlement since it would mean that Ukraine could never try to take back the rest of its territory (it's solely focused on assuming it prevents more Russian gains) since that would entail a NATO member launching massive strikes against Russian forces as the 'aggressor'. When would the rest of NATO agree to that, and if they might why would Russia agree to such a deal?
For another, ceasefire on those lines would not settle the actual claims of both Russia and Ukraine, which would mean there was still a territorial dispute. Which surely means they couldn't join NATO since that was part of why the Russian propaganda about if only Ukraine had promised to never join NATO (ie, give up control of their own foreign policy) made no sense, since it was never going to happen whilst Crimea and the Donbas was occupied.
On topic, let's consider the 1992 election and polling in the run up to it: Labour's peak lead mid-term was comparable to Starmer's now, but within 18 months of the election things were neck and neck.
We are now, at most, under 17 months from the next election. More likely closer to 12. And there is no sign of anything similar happening. The government is stumbling from crisis to crisis without any clear alternative narrative.
Starmer enthuses very few people, but he scares even fewer. He been ruthless in removing the far-left from his team, while being very careful about too many spending pledges. The absence of fear is key: if everyone agrees the Tories are useless, then why not give the other lot a chance if they appear mostly harmless?
What the Tories did in Uxbridge was find something (ULEZ) that motivated the fear response, which was likely decisive in a close race.
So unless the Tories can nail Starmer over something that gets national attention, my view is they are toast. I expect a surprisingly sizable Labour majority.
That graph is quite instructive. Dumping the increasingly toxic Thatcher and her hated Poll tax, on favour of the bland, charisma free Major* switched the poll lead to a photo finish.
The Tories have now ditched 2 Prime Ministers this Parliament, with negligible effect. The writing is on the wall for Sunak.
*bland, charisma free, facing down his head bangers and frightening no one. The Tory Starmer?
Though even before Major arrived on the scene, the gap was closing steadily through Summer 1990. Amazing, really.
But amazing things do happen. And next year either the Conservatives will claw back their position starting now to deny Labour a majority (pretty amazing) or Labour will overturn a big Conservative majority and replace it with one of their own (also pretty amazing).
Is Penny Mordaunt using facial expressions to communicate a leadership bid?
"This is simply an extraordinary study. Researchers gave $7,500 (CAD) to homeless people in Vancouver. The result? The program *saved* money. It helped many of them to move into housing faster, which saved the shelter system $8,277 per person. 🧵👇"
On topic, let's consider the 1992 election and polling in the run up to it: Labour's peak lead mid-term was comparable to Starmer's now, but within 18 months of the election things were neck and neck.
We are now, at most, under 17 months from the next election. More likely closer to 12. And there is no sign of anything similar happening. The government is stumbling from crisis to crisis without any clear alternative narrative.
Starmer enthuses very few people, but he scares even fewer. He been ruthless in removing the far-left from his team, while being very careful about too many spending pledges. The absence of fear is key: if everyone agrees the Tories are useless, then why not give the other lot a chance if they appear mostly harmless?
What the Tories did in Uxbridge was find something (ULEZ) that motivated the fear response, which was likely decisive in a close race.
So unless the Tories can nail Starmer over something that gets national attention, my view is they are toast. I expect a surprisingly sizable Labour majority.
That graph is quite instructive. Dumping the increasingly toxic Thatcher and her hated Poll tax, on favour of the bland, charisma free Major* switched the poll lead to a photo finish.
The Tories have now ditched 2 Prime Ministers this Parliament, with negligible effect. The writing is on the wall for Sunak.
*bland, charisma free, facing down his head bangers and frightening no one. The Tory Starmer?
Though even before Major arrived on the scene, the gap was closing steadily through Summer 1990. Amazing, really.
But amazing things do happen. And next year either the Conservatives will claw back their position starting now to deny Labour a majority (pretty amazing) or Labour will overturn a big Conservative majority and replace it with one of their own (also pretty amazing).
Is Penny Mordaunt using facial expressions to communicate a leadership bid?
On topic, on Sunday I will also be doing a piece on why I think a Labour majority is unlikely.
Real view or a devils advocate?
Real view based on real numbers.
I look forward to it then. See if you can shake my (opposite) view.
Your worried though aren't you? You are worried that when the electorate collectively looks at Labour they realise that the chances of "things can only get better" under Labour are a ridiculous pipedream. It is about as possible as SKS ever becoming unboring.
Labour always fucks the economy because they splurge money at the public sector that fails to improve it, whilst simultaneously stymying growth in the productive sector through increased taxation and unnecessary regulation. It was forever thus. A lot of the population know this. If there is such a thing as the wisdom of the crowds, Labour will get no overall control and hold office for about 4 years while the Tories regroup and cleanse themselves of the Boris Johnson scurvy.
You are recycling tired old tropes. But, yes, although my betting persona isn't worried, my political one is. Or put another way, my head is confident but my heart isn't. So much painful history.
I suppose they are tropes in the strictest definition, so I am glad you recognise as such, viz, a significant or recurrent theme. In Labour's case it is a significant or recurrent theme that they always fuck the economy. No significant organisation would ever put a bunch of lower middle managers in executive positions. That is what the country does, each time they put Labour in government.
Considering your team has been in government twice as long as anyone else, I don't see that they come out smelling of roses on the economy. In 1964 things were bad. Wilson's mistake was he didn't devalue sooner, much sooner. There is some good work by Cairncross's daughter (Frances) on this. 1979 was chaos, but anecdotally Heath's bequeathed legacy in 1974 hadn't been much better. Throughout Thatcher and Major's premierships we lurched from boom to bust and back again. The new Labour years were relatively benign and economic growth was better than it has been since. The 2008 world credit crisis has been styled as of Gordon Brown's making, and the rules are the incumbent takes the blame for a crisis on their watch. Liam Byrne's letter didn't help.
How has the economy fared since your government committed economic hara kiri in 2016?
And regards to Birmingham, which has a legacy issue of equal pay to contend with, remind me of the several Conservative authorities who have gone through the hoop in the last 5 years.
Also note that Brum was a Tory/LD Council 2003-12, the time of the equal pay case.
I guess you have no plan to "stop all this in its tracks", aside from giving Russia what it wants of Ukraine (the Nick Palmer approach?)
Disagreement is fine, but you shouldn't misrepresent me. I was on a platform with Jeremy Hunt denouncing the invasion and calling for support for Ukraine soon after it happened. I'm glad they were prevented from taking Kyiv and the west where literally almost nobody wants them. And thus I don't favour giving Russia Ukraine. But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line.
The situation in Ukraine seems to be one which a lot of active posters behave in a tribal way, you have to agree completely with them or else you are out of the tribe. This just prevents useful discussion of it, it is true for other areas as well. If you think in this way - complete victory or nothing, good vs evil, light vs dark... then you aren't really going to develop much real insight in to issues, or be very good at predicting what is going to happen in the world.
I think it's quite possible to have useful discussions and also nuanced opinions about Ukraine, for instance to believe that whilst Ukraine should be supported to regain all its lost territory that is unlikely to happen or be supported to that full goal by Western backers. And as such to consider what unpalatable options might crop up and what might happen.
However, it is also the case that opinions can be cloaked in nuanced or mild language, yet not be very nuanced at all when broken down to their basic points, which just mirror pro or anti talking points, dressed up better. And that deserves pointing out when it happens (some might claim it of my own input, gods forbid).
It is also the case that some elements are, on a moral level, rather straightforward. Things are not usually black and white, and I'm a firm proponent of acknowledging that. But sometimes they are black and white, and an attempt at balance can lead to false conclusions, and that should be acknowledged too.
"This is simply an extraordinary study. Researchers gave $7,500 (CAD) to homeless people in Vancouver. The result? The program *saved* money. It helped many of them to move into housing faster, which saved the shelter system $8,277 per person. 🧵👇"
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
"Free speech absolutist" objects to free speech.
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
It's also notable that, as is often the case, none of this is Musk's fault. It's all someone else's fault. He has made no mistakes; the fall in revenue is nothing to do with him, but all the fault of all these awful people.
It’s clearly true that there was an orchestrated campaign to boycott Twitter and pressure was placed on advertisers. The revenue decline wasn’t organic.
Firstly, orchestrated boycotts are clearly legal.
Secondly, who is doing the orchestrating? Who is the head of this (legal) conspiracy?
Wasn't one of the first tweets he posted after taking over twitter some rightwing conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi? No doubt Jewish people made him do that too. What an arse.
On topic, let's consider the 1992 election and polling in the run up to it: Labour's peak lead mid-term was comparable to Starmer's now, but within 18 months of the election things were neck and neck.
We are now, at most, under 17 months from the next election. More likely closer to 12. And there is no sign of anything similar happening. The government is stumbling from crisis to crisis without any clear alternative narrative.
Starmer enthuses very few people, but he scares even fewer. He been ruthless in removing the far-left from his team, while being very careful about too many spending pledges. The absence of fear is key: if everyone agrees the Tories are useless, then why not give the other lot a chance if they appear mostly harmless?
What the Tories did in Uxbridge was find something (ULEZ) that motivated the fear response, which was likely decisive in a close race.
So unless the Tories can nail Starmer over something that gets national attention, my view is they are toast. I expect a surprisingly sizable Labour majority.
That graph is quite instructive. Dumping the increasingly toxic Thatcher and her hated Poll tax, on favour of the bland, charisma free Major* switched the poll lead to a photo finish.
The Tories have now ditched 2 Prime Ministers this Parliament, with negligible effect. The writing is on the wall for Sunak.
*bland, charisma free, facing down his head bangers and frightening no one. The Tory Starmer?
Though even before Major arrived on the scene, the gap was closing steadily through Summer 1990. Amazing, really.
But amazing things do happen. And next year either the Conservatives will claw back their position starting now to deny Labour a majority (pretty amazing) or Labour will overturn a big Conservative majority and replace it with one of their own (also pretty amazing).
Is Penny Mordaunt using facial expressions to communicate a leadership bid?
Comments
Too many people want to do what they like, get a home or business of their own, but then pull up the drawbridge for others. "Sorry I got mine, so screw you".
If you don't want Edinburgh to be a place that attracts tourists then don't facilitate that in your own actions, but you shouldn't prevent others from doing so if they do want that.
The irony comes from the fact that he was later executed for his opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922 and was described by Churchill as a monstrous individual.
Jonathan at ADL kicked off a massive Twitter boycott campaign less than a week after the acquisition closed.
Literally nothing had changed about the site.
Our US revenue is still 60% down from that campaign, but slowly improving.
Watched fire-fighters carrying his little boy down the stairs and out the front door, the day the apartment got raided (his not mine).
In USA there are laws - fed, state and mostly local - governing what constitutes nuisance or worse.
In my equally humble experience, in gritty urbanity (relieved in Seattle by lots of trees and other flora) most effective sanction re: excessive noise or other crapola, is complaining to the landlord.
BTW & FYI, most of the other tenants are students. And on whatever scale, I'm likely rowdier than they!
The STL is literally destroying the sanity of a friend who's having to learn 'modern' C++ at the moment...
Oh, you meant Short Term Lets...
Still no need for planning permission though, zoning should replace it.
https://twitter.com/yermolenko_v/status/1699156009573335461
It might be overhyped, but it certainly does not sound good. It also mirrors, in part, some of the stories that came out of the LPR and DPR post-2014
This is the point where I remind you that Equalizer 3 is only 109 minutes
Calling for boycotts is perfectly legal free speech.
Their partisan arguments are usually better expressed, because they are intelligent jurists, and as you note not perfectly aligned with the parties of the day - longevity and power explaining that - but very much present. They point it out bluntly to each other in minority judgements, as political opinion overrides any judicial reasoning.
On this particular case I'd bet it goes nowhere, but not because Trump 'must be defeated at the ballot box'. That'd be nice but is bollocks, as it's often used in a way to claim immunity from legal consequence.
The AG has got himself a slick lawyer, with the mouse and (maybe) the nous, to prove it.
Today he been engaged in cross examining first witness, a former assistant state AG who was one who blew the whistle on Paxton. Early days, but so appears to be on fishing expedition without many fish to show for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVpkHqaJxnI
Addendum - note that this is Republican versus Republican, with Paxton, Trump and their ilk labeling less-obliging GOPers as "RHINOS".
Got to say that the only adverts I see on Twitter are drop ship scams, Crypto scams and more recently people trying to get newsletter signups so they can then sell you their scams...
If my area became an area I wasn't happy with, I'd move.
What's the problem?
"Florida man arrested after trying to cross Atlantic in hamster wheel vessel"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66733230
Jellicoe might possibly have destroyed the German fleet at Jutland had he taken a chance, but there was no need to and the consequences had it gone wrong were unthinkable.
As it was the German fleet was bottled up for the duration, which was fine for us, and contributed significantly to eventual success.
Externalities, see. Libertarianism isn't all about tooling along an eight lane motorway someone else has mostly paid for.
He can be salty about it, sure, that's his right, but it comes down to a whinge people are mean about him and that's not very compelling.
People try to put on pressure all the time, usually it fails.
If you don't like your choices, make different choices. Don't complaain about the choices others are making.
If you're opposed to zoning for tourism, then let any and every home that its owner wants to let out do so instead and let the free market resolve it.
If you choose not to, you have to handle the consequences of not doing so.
Free choice is not freedom from consequence - and other people making noise (or letting others do so) in their own flat isn't an externality, its their own bloody flat. What did you expect when you moved into a flat FFS, that you were moving into a detached bungalow?
Saw that story on ROF.
So what?
Advertising isn't organic either, Twitter isn't organic. If you want organic, get into niche farming, don't run a free speech business as a free speech absolutist then cry that others said things you don't like.
If the facts change, you need to handle them.
You're free to make your own choices. Don't see any reason others can't do the same.
I'm not entirely sure why the ADL would think someone they were campaigning about saying "its so unfair, this campaign hurt us" is something they should be disappointed about.
I have deliberately chosen a firm that is never in RoF. The old shop has barely been out of it for 18-months. I want boring.
If the leader is Black and Female then it's just free money.
Secondly, who is doing the orchestrating? Who is the head of this (legal) conspiracy?
....................................................................................................................................
In other words, yes. Despite the massive outcry, the questions in parliament, the publication of two formal reports, the Chief Executive being forced into a series of grovelling and humiliating apologies, the Post Office is still offering bonuses to its staff for their work on the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Of course it is."
https://www.postofficescandal.uk/post/will-post-office-execs-continue-to-be-given-bonuses-for-their-inquiry-work/
Pirates are fun.
I put some thought into the name I chose. The pirate I chose the name of is quite an interesting one of note, who is famous for amongst other things coming up with a pirate code and has inspired much of fiction, including Dread Pirate Roberts, being referenced in Treasure Island and so on. The oft-referenced to the code that 'is more guidelines than actual rules' was created by Roberts in PotC too.
I'm not ashamed of my choice. Any such murder was hundreds of years ago and pirates have become fun since then and I stand by that. Get a sense of humour if you're that prickly over stuff centuries ago.
We are now, at most, under 17 months from the next election. More likely closer to 12. And there is no sign of anything similar happening. The government is stumbling from crisis to crisis without any clear alternative narrative.
Starmer enthuses very few people, but he scares even fewer. He been ruthless in removing the far-left from his team, while being very careful about too many spending pledges. The absence of fear is key: if everyone agrees the Tories are useless, then why not give the other lot a chance if they appear mostly harmless?
What the Tories did in Uxbridge was find something (ULEZ) that motivated the fear response, which was likely decisive in a close race.
So unless the Tories can nail Starmer over something that gets national attention, my view is they are toast. I expect a surprisingly sizable Labour majority.
"But I favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line."
That's *exactly* giving Russia what they want at the moment. A pause to rearm and prepare.
(*) Without stating whether that's the area they control, or the areas they *claim* in the rather interesting laws they passed.
When Twitter dies we can all go back to writing letters and speaking via cocoa tins with string. Little will be lost.
That's like saying in 1940 while the Nazis occupied France and almost all of western Europe "I don't want to give the Nazis what they want, but favour encouraging a ceasefire on the current line".
And if we let Russia keep their current line in a ceasefire then all that does is send out a message that changing borders via warfare is perfectly acceptable in our eyes, just get in quick and brutally and get the job done and we'll not stand up to you.
If you want to stop war, if you want to oppose borders being changed by invasions, then we need to ensure that all of Ukraine is liberated and Russia doesn't get to keep any of it.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1697642598037438930
and while we are there, today's offering:
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1699457734255534268
There is no justification for allowing invaders to do acts of conquest, acts of genocide and repopulation, and then hold referendums afterwards. That's not democratic.
As with the deposit return scheme, and the alcohol advertising legislation, this is another piece of fucked up freedom-hating economy-destroying legislation from the Scottish Government, who are currently flushing themselves down the loo with grim determination.
Nick, your position on this conflict has always been poor, from saying we should not 'poke' Russia into invading, to blaming NATO's eastwards expansion, to Ukrainian Nazis, to Bandera. I see lots of soft pro=Russian views, but absolutely no concern for the Ukrainians who are being put through Hell because of their invasion by a fascist, imperialist state.
You may want to read the thread I posted earlier this evening, then ask how, with good conscience, you can ask to subject Ukrainians to Russian mistreatment.
It's like Ronco for the gullible.
Parody Rishi Sunak
@Parody_PM
Under the current school rebuilding programme, only 4 schools have been completed in the last two years. If we continue at the same rate, all 22,000 schools should be finished in just over 11,000 years time
Pause
Pause
Your what???
Good and evil are real too.
Putin's invasion is evil. That's not outrageous to say, its true. Read the stories linked above, it is brutal, it is bloody, it is wrong and it is evil.
If your response to evil happening is to say "oh well 🤷♂️" then that's your choice. But others disagreeing are perfectly within their rights to disagree.
The Tories have now ditched 2 Prime Ministers this Parliament, with negligible effect. The writing is on the wall for Sunak.
*bland, charisma free, facing down his head bangers and frightening no one. The Tory Starmer?
Funnily enough I had a parcel to deliver to him today, and it turns out he is the very same archaeologist I was reading about yesterday! We had a nice chat about the local sites, about my recent trip to Carnac, and about how I should buy his book from the shop at Avebury or Stonehenge when I walk to them
But amazing things do happen. And next year either the Conservatives will claw back their position starting now to deny Labour a majority (pretty amazing) or Labour will overturn a big Conservative majority and replace it with one of their own (also pretty amazing).
How has the economy fared since your government committed economic hara kiri in 2016?
And regards to Birmingham, which has a legacy issue of equal pay to contend with, remind me of the several Conservative authorities who have gone through the hoop in the last 5 years.
I also don't quite understand the idea of 'ceasefire on the current line with Uraine allowed to join NATO'. For one, surely that makes it a permanent settlement since it would mean that Ukraine could never try to take back the rest of its territory (it's solely focused on assuming it prevents more Russian gains) since that would entail a NATO member launching massive strikes against Russian forces as the 'aggressor'. When would the rest of NATO agree to that, and if they might why would Russia agree to such a deal?
For another, ceasefire on those lines would not settle the actual claims of both Russia and Ukraine, which would mean there was still a territorial dispute. Which surely means they couldn't join NATO since that was part of why the Russian propaganda about if only Ukraine had promised to never join NATO (ie, give up control of their own foreign policy) made no sense, since it was never going to happen whilst Crimea and the Donbas was occupied.
https://x.com/bestforbritain/status/1699404670232318422
https://twitter.com/rcbregman/status/1699406128902447476?t=yurXMnjbMDsfAOV8yEz25Q&s=19
However, it is also the case that opinions can be cloaked in nuanced or mild language, yet not be very nuanced at all when broken down to their basic points, which just mirror pro or anti talking points, dressed up better. And that deserves pointing out when it happens (some might claim it of my own input, gods forbid).
It is also the case that some elements are, on a moral level, rather straightforward. Things are not usually black and white, and I'm a firm proponent of acknowledging that. But sometimes they are black and white, and an attempt at balance can lead to false conclusions, and that should be acknowledged too.
"I hate advertising"
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1188890479401689088?lang=en
Wasn't one of the first tweets he posted after taking over twitter some rightwing conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi? No doubt Jewish people made him do that too. What an arse.
@DailyMirror
Woman jailed for nurse sex assault groped female guards as they served her food
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prisoner-jailed-nurse-sex-assault-30877302
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1699424362669940860
SexXY woman