There is a logic in Sunak’s green gamble – politicalbetting.com
Given how far behind in the polls that the Tories are there is a fair bit of sense in Sunak’s recent announcement that he intends to scrap some of the key environmental targets that have been settled policy for several years.
Lets see what happens to those 2019 Con voters who say they are "Don't Know" > I think they'll start firming up in the CON column from now onwards... but we'll see...
One thing is for sure. The 2024 General Election starts NOW!
A few threads ago, a nameless Francophile @Leon accused me of saying the RWC was crap (never - I am obsessed with it)...because of the minnow teams getting hammered. No I didnt. I would prefer to see a reduction in teams from 20 to 16 to shorten the length of the tournament, and I am concerned that someone will get seriously injured due the mismatches.
One way around this is to have two tier qualification - have top 12 qualifying teams joining at first round proper consisting of 16 teams in 4 groups of 4. So first round taking 3 weekends instead of 5. Meanwhile second group of 8 (or 12/16) qualifying teams meet up one (or two) weeks earlier to play in preliminary round for final 4 places. This would present some logistical problems but nothing imsurmountable.
This would have the additional benefit of presenting opportunities for nameless jobbing travel writers eg @Leon to report on suburban fast food joints.
🔥🚗Big backlash against Ford from some Tory MPs on Whatsapp group
Brendan Clarke-Smith: "Ford's problem is their car sales have been dwindling for years. Perhaps they saw this as an artificial way to boost them in the short term."
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“There is now clear green water between the parties, making life trickier for Sir Keir Starmer. But I hope Sunak realises just how vicious the backlash will be: the Blob, the cultural aristocracy and myriad pseudo-Tories will unleash every dirty trick in the book to force him to back down. Broadcasters will continue to be hysterically negative, as will the clerisy; he will be accused of hating the “youth”; the Church, the Left-wing think-tanks, big business and charities will continue to condemn him; there will be leaks, resignations, and attempts at ousting him. It will be nasty and frenzied, but he must hold firm.
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. The same holds true for the other policies Sunak is delaying, including the ban on new oil and gas boilers. They are all examples of what the philosopher Rob Henderson calls “luxury beliefs”, ideas performatively adopted by hypocritical jet-setting elites to highlight their high social status, even though they inflict immense costs on those who can’t afford expensive electric cars or spare thousands to replace a boiler with technology that is not yet ready.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/net-zero-rishi-sunak-blob-heresy/
Parents in England no longer see daily school attendance as vital, report finds Research finds breakdown in parents’ social contract with schools since Covid lockdowns and cost of living crisis ... ... some parents no longer believe it is their responsibility to ensure that their child is in school every day, triggering “a full-blown national crisis” in school attendance that will require “a monumental, multi-service effort” if it is to be reversed, the report states. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/21/parents-in-england-no-longer-see-daily-school-attendance-as-vital-report-finds
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“There is now clear green water between the parties, making life trickier for Sir Keir Starmer. But I hope Sunak realises just how vicious the backlash will be: the Blob, the cultural aristocracy and myriad pseudo-Tories will unleash every dirty trick in the book to force him to back down. Broadcasters will continue to be hysterically negative, as will the clerisy; he will be accused of hating the “youth”; the Church, the Left-wing think-tanks, big business and charities will continue to condemn him; there will be leaks, resignations, and attempts at ousting him. It will be nasty and frenzied, but he must hold firm.
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution...
This is utter balls. Unless he's suggesting the ban is on all cars, as opposed to new ones. Which is obviously untrue.
Revealed: how Russia deliberately targeted Kherson’s hospitals https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/20/revealed-how-russia-deliberately-targeted-kherson-hospitals ...“Russia’s activities in Kherson are strikingly reminiscent of Russian tactics in Syria, where apparently punitive strikes were delivered day after day for years in rebel-held areas of Idlib and Aleppo,” CIR said. These were “unconnected to any ground operations”, and typically directed at “medical infrastructure” and water treatment plants...
...According to Kyiv, Russia has launched more than 2,000 drone attacks on Ukraine over the past year. Most sent to the Ukrainian capital have been shot down. In Kherson, however, the Russians are using barrelled artillery, which is impossible to intercept. They occupied the city for nine months and are familiar with its locations...
Revealed: how Russia deliberately targeted Kherson’s hospitals https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/20/revealed-how-russia-deliberately-targeted-kherson-hospitals ...“Russia’s activities in Kherson are strikingly reminiscent of Russian tactics in Syria, where apparently punitive strikes were delivered day after day for years in rebel-held areas of Idlib and Aleppo,” CIR said. These were “unconnected to any ground operations”, and typically directed at “medical infrastructure” and water treatment plants...
...According to Kyiv, Russia has launched more than 2,000 drone attacks on Ukraine over the past year. Most sent to the Ukrainian capital have been shot down. In Kherson, however, the Russians are using barrelled artillery, which is impossible to intercept. They occupied the city for nine months and are familiar with its locations...
Yet more war crimes, to add to the long list of reasons why Putin, Lavrov, and many other Russian leaders, deserve to rot in Hell be tried in The Hague.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
I hate to say this as someone committed to helping the planet, but politically this is irrelevant. It won't make a jot of difference to voting intentions. There will be froth and bubble and the dial won't move.
But one thing that Mike has written does stand out as incongrous. He says, 'being attacked by the former Tory Prime Minister might be no bad thing.'
Yet, that former Tory Prime Minister is the one whose 2019 voters are left out on the margins - Mike's great undecideds and don't knows. They are the people Boris reached in the anomalous 2019 Get Brexit Done election. They don't like Sunak because he shafted their man.
Lose Boris, you definitely lose the election.
Funnily enough I was chatting with a centrist tory the other evening - she came to dinner, showing was a magnanimous and open-hearted girl I am (;) and she said that she thinks the tories ditching Boris was a mistake, that he didn't really do anything "that" bad, and that the electorate would have got over it.
I'm not saying I agree. It's just that Boris is still much loved by some tory voters.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
The Telegraph have really latched onto the idea of The Blob in the last couple of years. In fact, really since the defenestration of Liz Truss. She, and her economic policies, had a lot of support in the paper and her downfall is blamed on The Blob. It's one of Charles Moore's favourite terms.
The Reactionary Right's last railings against the dying of the light.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Parents in England no longer see daily school attendance as vital, report finds Research finds breakdown in parents’ social contract with schools since Covid lockdowns and cost of living crisis ... ... some parents no longer believe it is their responsibility to ensure that their child is in school every day, triggering “a full-blown national crisis” in school attendance that will require “a monumental, multi-service effort” if it is to be reversed, the report states. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/21/parents-in-england-no-longer-see-daily-school-attendance-as-vital-report-finds
The current UK market share of 100% ICE passenger cars is now 40%.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess at what it will be in 7 years?
This measure makes Sunak look like a fucking idiot to everbody except those who didn't understand the policy in the first place. Which I suppose is the point.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
The current UK market share of 100% ICE passenger cars is now 40%.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess at what it will be in 7 years?
This measure makes Sunak look like a fucking idiot to everbody except those who didn't understand the policy in the first place. Which I suppose is the point.
The only people who will like this policy are those who believe that all ICE cars would be banned from the roads in 2030…
The thing to remember is that. Lot of people will be thinking that because all they will see is the words “ban petrol cars 2030”..
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Remember how I talk about how the Tories have weaponised stupidity and ignorance...?
I don't know about that; it's what you sign up to do. Almost everyone (except a few weirdo wankers) would rather be at sea than on a shore draft. The real challenge for the sundodgers was moving the SSKNs to Faslane and AUKUS. As predicted by almost everyone (they did exactly the same with the RAF MPA crews) the Australians have started asset stripping the submarine service with lateral transfers and much better terms of service. The poorest paid rate on their first cruise on a RAN boat makes £70k. Now, nobody joins the Navy for the money but...
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
That letter seems so incredible that it looks like a hoax, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is real. Can you imagine if you were accused of a crime in a newspaper (no arrest, court case etc) then Parliament wrote to your employer effectively asking that they stop paying you on the basis of its view of your character, based in turn on 'allegations' against you that are being made by media outlets that have their own commercial motives.
All these ideas, rule of law, innocent before proven guilty etc, are disappearing. What is most alarming is that there seems to be no interest in restoring them.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Remember how I talk about how the Tories have weaponised stupidity and ignorance...?
See also Uxbridge, and the voters who feared that their Teslas would be subject to the ULEZ charge.
The only question is whether the Conservative Blob is stupid and ignorant themselves, or whether they are knowingly lying to con the stupid and ignorant.
Parents in England no longer see daily school attendance as vital, report finds Research finds breakdown in parents’ social contract with schools since Covid lockdowns and cost of living crisis ... ... some parents no longer believe it is their responsibility to ensure that their child is in school every day, triggering “a full-blown national crisis” in school attendance that will require “a monumental, multi-service effort” if it is to be reversed, the report states. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/21/parents-in-england-no-longer-see-daily-school-attendance-as-vital-report-finds
I have just come back from a break in Jersey. I was surprised by how many British children of school age were on holiday, staying at the hotel.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
This letter only feeds into the Brand narrative that ‘they’ are out to get him. It’s a ridiculous intervention.
🔥🚗Big backlash against Ford from some Tory MPs on Whatsapp group
Brendan Clarke-Smith: "Ford's problem is their car sales have been dwindling for years. Perhaps they saw this as an artificial way to boost them in the short term."
A heady combination of Johnson's "F*** business" insousiance, and Truss' hamfisted incompetence.
Sunak didn't bother to think or ask about the approach of businesses in the sector, or the impact on investment. Then Tory MPs have a hissy fit when it turns out that serious business leaders weirdly aren't pathetically grateful about the rug being pulled out from under them for the sake of a couple of days of drooling cobblers from cretins like Allister Heath in the Telegraph.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Remember how I talk about how the Tories have weaponised stupidity and ignorance...?
See also Uxbridge, and the voters who feared that their Teslas would be subject to the ULEZ charge.
The only question is whether the Conservative Blob is stupid and ignorant themselves, or whether they are knowingly lying to con the stupid and ignorant.
Neither is a good look in a government.
I think there's a chance it works - I have an older relative who is intelligent, open minded etc and yet still had to have this explained to them.
Parents in England no longer see daily school attendance as vital, report finds Research finds breakdown in parents’ social contract with schools since Covid lockdowns and cost of living crisis ... ... some parents no longer believe it is their responsibility to ensure that their child is in school every day, triggering “a full-blown national crisis” in school attendance that will require “a monumental, multi-service effort” if it is to be reversed, the report states. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/21/parents-in-england-no-longer-see-daily-school-attendance-as-vital-report-finds
I have just come back from a break in Jersey. I was surprised by how many British children of school age were on holiday, staying at the hotel.
They were refugees, we have a big problem with small boats coming out of the Portsmouth region full of British people escaping the third world.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Remember how I talk about how the Tories have weaponised stupidity and ignorance...?
See also Uxbridge, and the voters who feared that their Teslas would be subject to the ULEZ charge.
The only question is whether the Conservative Blob is stupid and ignorant themselves, or whether they are knowingly lying to con the stupid and ignorant.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
This letter only feeds into the Brand narrative that ‘they’ are out to get him. It’s a ridiculous intervention.
Absolutely.
Here’s libertarian commentator Tim Pool’s podcast from last night, the title is: “Timcast IRL - Russell Brand Conspiracy PROVEN TRUE, UK GOV CAUGHT Targeting Him” https://youtube.com/watch?v=vX1bpykg_vY
Now, there’s understandable confusion between UK government and UK Parliament, and between UK and US law on freedom of speech, but letters like this definitely add to Brand’s own narrative.
What Dineage and her Committee have now managed to achieve, is a lot of fence-sitters - at least in the US - coming down on Brand’s side, that he’s being targeted by “them” because of his outspoken views on subjects xy&z.
The current UK market share of 100% ICE passenger cars is now 40%.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess at what it will be in 7 years?
This measure makes Sunak look like a fucking idiot to everbody except those who didn't understand the policy in the first place. Which I suppose is the point.
The UK share of ICE-only cars is 40%?
That means there’s 16m ICE-only cars, and 24m hybrid and electric cars?
Or do you mean the share of *NEW* ICE-only cars is only 40%?
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
This letter only feeds into the Brand narrative that ‘they’ are out to get him. It’s a ridiculous intervention.
Essentially they are out to get him. It is what the rule of law and the system of libel and defamation sought to prevent happening - but it no longer works, at least in situations like this.
I do think however that people don't necessarily respond to this in the same way as they did for cases like Jimmy Savile. I was talking to some women a couple of days ago at the swimming pool, they just seemed to feel sorry for Brand. There was no sense of disgust or outrage.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
That letter seems so incredible that it looks like a hoax, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is real. Can you imagine if you were accused of a crime in a newspaper (no arrest, court case etc) then Parliament wrote to your employer effectively asking that they stop paying you on the basis of its view of your character, based in turn on 'allegations' against you that are being made by media outlets that have their own commercial motives.
All these ideas, rule of law, innocent before proven guilty etc, are disappearing. What is most alarming is that there seems to be no interest in restoring them.
It’s ridiculous but I have some sympathy for her.
If she does nothing the media goes “Caroline Dineage refuses to intervene in Russell Brand case” / “Senior MP believes Brand should be able to make money from videos attacking his victims” etc etc
It’s much harder to defend an abstract principle like innocent until proven guilty.
We have shit politicians because all the incentives we have established point them in that direction
This letter only feeds into the Brand narrative that ‘they’ are out to get him. It’s a ridiculous intervention.
The current UK market share of 100% ICE passenger cars is now 40%.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess at what it will be in 7 years?
This measure makes Sunak look like a fucking idiot to everbody except those who didn't understand the policy in the first place. Which I suppose is the point.
The UK share of ICE-only cars is 40%?
That means there’s 16m ICE-only cars, and 24m hybrid and electric cars?
Or do you mean the share of *NEW* ICE-only cars is only 40%?
Given the policy is *NEW* cars, that's the right stat.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
Of course, freedom of speech extends to people calling for Brand to be "Sent to Coventry" too.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
Of course, freedom of speech extends to people calling for Brand to be "Sent to Coventry" too.
Absolutely. The basic test of freedom of speech, is do you believe in freedom of speech for the always wrong, the idiots, the morons, and your political opponents?
The best recent UK example, is when Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time. It was the start of his party’s downfall, as everyone could suddenly see him for what he was, in his own words.
Trying to censor people is a dangerous path to tread.
Before yesterday's announcement, the UK was going for a soft ban on ICE (hybrids were still allowed in new cars) starting 2030, and the EU for a hard ban (no fossil fuels at all in new cars) in 2035.
Is the Sunak scheme to copy the EU (probably a mistake business-wise, but also probably a similar trajectory overall), or to shift the UK's soft ban back to 2035 (probably a mistake business-wise and a bad thing for the planet)?
The current UK market share of 100% ICE passenger cars is now 40%.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess at what it will be in 7 years?
This measure makes Sunak look like a fucking idiot to everbody except those who didn't understand the policy in the first place. Which I suppose is the point.
The UK share of ICE-only cars is 40%?
That means there’s 16m ICE-only cars, and 24m hybrid and electric cars?
Or do you mean the share of *NEW* ICE-only cars is only 40%?
August from the SMMT:
So conventionally fueled vehicles are already less than half the market, and shrinking.
Though as I understood it is only EV and PHEV vehicles that were exempt from the 2030 ban, not all hybrids, so 27.8% of August sales meet the old 2030 target.
I have to say that the one bit of positive news is that the rules about EPC levels for private tenancies are being replaced by an incentive structure to improve the environmental performance of buildings. This will hopefully keep landlords from evicting tenants and selling up, or alternatively hiking up the rents, it may help to curb inflation.
I live in a flat in a single glazed unlisted period building, no cavity walls etc. I've looked in to it in detail and no energy saving measures are remotely economic. Many would destroy the appearance and character of the building. For what purpose? The total energy (gas/electric) bill each year is £1200, over 50% of which are standing charges.
This change of direction may actually mean that I can eventually sell the flat to someone else without them being put off by the EPC grading system which is wholly inappropriate for a building like this.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Not without cause. ULEZ is basically that for older cars. It doesn't take a genius to see which way the wind was blowing and suspect that ULEZ areas will grow and grow whilst ZEZs will start springing up. All the while pure petrol cars can be bought new, it protects owners with ones built to the current standards from government bans. This is fairly important to those of us who have looked at the prices and volumes of cars now being built, and realised that the future of motoring looks like to involve becoming Cuba on Thames as we have to make our current cars last a very long time indeed.
Leaving aside the fuel question, on principle I'll never own a car that's connected to the Internet so the manufacturer can push updates out to it. I want to own my car, not have the potential for the manufacturer to go all Apple and irreversibly cripple it so I have to buy a new one (Merc would definitely do this if they thought they could get away with it, given they are as immoral as charging subscriptions to use the heated seats with which their cars are already fitted).
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Not without cause. ULEZ is basically that for older cars. It doesn't take a genius to see which way the wind was blowing and suspect that ULEZ areas will grow and grow whilst ZEZs will start springing up. All the while pure petrol cars can be bought new, it protects owners with ones built to the current standards from government bans. This is fairly important to those of us who have looked at the prices and volumes of cars now being built, and realised that the future of motoring looks like to involve becoming Cuba on Thames as we have to make our current cars last a very long time indeed.
Leaving aside the fuel question, on principle I'll never own a car that's connected to the Internet so the manufacturer can push updates out to it. I want to own my car, not have the potential for the manufacturer to go all Apple and irreversibly cripple it so I have to buy a new one (Merc would definitely do this if they thought they could get away with it, given they are as immoral as charging subscriptions to use the heated seats with which their cars are already fitted).
Agree with most of that, although the heated seats were BMW rather than Merc.
The most connected cars of all, are the EVs. If your insurance company writes off an old Tesla for relatively minor damage, that car can never again be charged on the Supercharger network.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Not without cause. ULEZ is basically that for older cars. It doesn't take a genius to see which way the wind was blowing and suspect that ULEZ areas will grow and grow whilst ZEZs will start springing up. All the while pure petrol cars can be bought new, it protects owners with ones built to the current standards from government bans. This is fairly important to those of us who have looked at the prices and volumes of cars now being built, and realised that the future of motoring looks like to involve becoming Cuba on Thames as we have to make our current cars last a very long time indeed.
Leaving aside the fuel question, on principle I'll never own a car that's connected to the Internet so the manufacturer can push updates out to it. I want to own my car, not have the potential for the manufacturer to go all Apple and irreversibly cripple it so I have to buy a new one (Merc would definitely do this if they thought they could get away with it, given they are as immoral as charging subscriptions to use the heated seats with which their cars are already fitted).
First paragraph - that's exactly the point of the electric cars policy. To make them look more attractive in the long run, and thereby stimulate the supply of them.
ULEZ is entirely separate, affected hardly any cars, and ultimately if our democratically elected local politicians wish to extend those areas that's up to them and their constituents. I appreciate people want to deliberately conflate the two policies for political advantage though.
The second para - I entirely agree, and it's an issue across pretty much everything now. A bigger issue for me is those touch screens over switches - hugely distracting if I'm trying to turn the air con on or something. And impossible to fix.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
Of course, freedom of speech extends to people calling for Brand to be "Sent to Coventry" too.
Absolutely. The basic test of freedom of speech, is do you believe in freedom of speech for the always wrong, the idiots, the morons, and your political opponents?
The best recent UK example, is when Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time. It was the start of his party’s downfall, as everyone could suddenly see him for what he was, in his own words.
Trying to censor people is a dangerous path to tread.
When I was younger I was heavily influenced by Noam Chomsky - and still am in some ways. He was always making this point and he was absolutely right.
Some thoughts: 1. Sunak is clearly aware the Tories are in deep trouble. 2. His gamble is that strong signals Net Zero is no big deal will chime. 3. But the hard policy dividing line is a deadline for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. 4. He has traded a lot for very little.
"While social attitudes have moved seemingly inexorably towards a more liberal perspective, the BSA notes that attitudes towards the role and size of the state have fluctuated, with support for increased tax and spending, for example, swinging from 32% in 1983 to 63% in 1998 before falling to 31% in 2010.
It is now 55%. “So far as the public are concerned at least, the era of smaller government that Margaret Thatcher aimed to promulgate – and which Liz Truss briefly tried to restore in the autumn of 2022 with her ill-fated ‘dash for growth’ – now seems a world away,” the study concludes."
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
Of course, freedom of speech extends to people calling for Brand to be "Sent to Coventry" too.
Absolutely. The basic test of freedom of speech, is do you believe in freedom of speech for the always wrong, the idiots, the morons, and your political opponents?
The best recent UK example, is when Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time. It was the start of his party’s downfall, as everyone could suddenly see him for what he was, in his own words.
Trying to censor people is a dangerous path to tread.
When I was younger I was heavily influenced by Noam Chomsky - and still am in some ways. He was always making this point and he was absolutely right.
McCarthyism's decline in the US dates from the time he personally appeared pubicly denouncing alleged Communists. People could see what a turd he was and started to edge away.
This will be one of the weirdest elections ever; essentially two main parties campaigning from opposition. At some point the ‘logic’ will start to unravel, surely.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
The problem for the Tories is that this is a lie that is easily provable.
Some thoughts: 1. Sunak is clearly aware the Tories are in deep trouble. 2. His gamble is that strong signals Net Zero is no big deal will chime. 3. But the hard policy dividing line is a deadline for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. 4. He has traded a lot for very little.
I think his basic problem is less to do with the substance of the change, it is that he is trying to get credit for doing a U-turn on his own governments policy. Also it is one done on the hoof - it isn't like he has worked this up for months with focus groups and civil servants. It really looks like an act of desperation.
"While social attitudes have moved seemingly inexorably towards a more liberal perspective, the BSA notes that attitudes towards the role and size of the state have fluctuated, with support for increased tax and spending, for example, swinging from 32% in 1983 to 63% in 1998 before falling to 31% in 2010.
It is now 55%. “So far as the public are concerned at least, the era of smaller government that Margaret Thatcher aimed to promulgate – and which Liz Truss briefly tried to restore in the autumn of 2022 with her ill-fated ‘dash for growth’ – now seems a world away,” the study concludes."
"While social attitudes have moved seemingly inexorably towards a more liberal perspective, the BSA notes that attitudes towards the role and size of the state have fluctuated, with support for increased tax and spending, for example, swinging from 32% in 1983 to 63% in 1998 before falling to 31% in 2010.
It is now 55%. “So far as the public are concerned at least, the era of smaller government that Margaret Thatcher aimed to promulgate – and which Liz Truss briefly tried to restore in the autumn of 2022 with her ill-fated ‘dash for growth’ – now seems a world away,” the study concludes."
Truss and Sunak both believe fundamentally that Britain should go against the tide. They are techno-optimists, with little interest in what they think of as backwards, retrograde activities such as manufacturing, and a Thatcher-derived allergy to phrases like “industrial policy” and “subsidy”.
If Treasury officials believe markets would bear it, after all, they would always rather cut taxes than, say, fund a multibillion-pound nuclear-power building programme. They would always buy cheap over British. They would always favour banks over factories, which is why there is a Treasury director-general for financial services but none for manufacturing. In this, the mandarins, Sunak and Truss think as one.
Some thoughts: 1. Sunak is clearly aware the Tories are in deep trouble. 2. His gamble is that strong signals Net Zero is no big deal will chime. 3. But the hard policy dividing line is a deadline for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. 4. He has traded a lot for very little.
Though the polling (including some the government did before the announcement, according to The Times) is equivocal at best on that.
The alternative is that Rishi is doing this because he really is very right wing indeed.
Wonder what the impact of this will be on the green vote.
Logically those who care a lot about the environment should go Labour... the line that two parties are all the same on environment clearly doesn't wash now.
But the increased focus on green issues could mean a boost for green party possibly?
"While social attitudes have moved seemingly inexorably towards a more liberal perspective, the BSA notes that attitudes towards the role and size of the state have fluctuated, with support for increased tax and spending, for example, swinging from 32% in 1983 to 63% in 1998 before falling to 31% in 2010.
It is now 55%. “So far as the public are concerned at least, the era of smaller government that Margaret Thatcher aimed to promulgate – and which Liz Truss briefly tried to restore in the autumn of 2022 with her ill-fated ‘dash for growth’ – now seems a world away,” the study concludes."
This will be one of the weirdest elections ever; essentially two main parties campaigning from opposition. At some point the ‘logic’ will start to unravel, surely.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
The problem for the Tories is that this is a lie that is easily provable.
Didn't work against Boris in 2019.
Though Boris was a much more effective liar than Rishi.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Even the BBC keeps making that mistake, and the local Facebook groups are riddled with it.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
Remember how I talk about how the Tories have weaponised stupidity and ignorance...?
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
The idea that you can broad-brush generalise in this way about *any* ‘generation’ is just bollocks. But tbh Alex Mahon comes across a bit Grampa Simpson ‘old man yells at cloud’ here. Young people today, eh. Twas ever thus.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
Of course, freedom of speech extends to people calling for Brand to be "Sent to Coventry" too.
Absolutely. The basic test of freedom of speech, is do you believe in freedom of speech for the always wrong, the idiots, the morons, and your political opponents?
The best recent UK example, is when Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time. It was the start of his party’s downfall, as everyone could suddenly see him for what he was, in his own words.
Trying to censor people is a dangerous path to tread.
When I was younger I was heavily influenced by Noam Chomsky - and still am in some ways. He was always making this point and he was absolutely right.
Ironically, Noam Chomsky should have perhaps listened to his own point, as it becomes harder to maintain a high opinion of him the more you're exposed to him.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
Of course, freedom of speech extends to people calling for Brand to be "Sent to Coventry" too.
Absolutely. The basic test of freedom of speech, is do you believe in freedom of speech for the always wrong, the idiots, the morons, and your political opponents?
The best recent UK example, is when Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time. It was the start of his party’s downfall, as everyone could suddenly see him for what he was, in his own words.
Trying to censor people is a dangerous path to tread.
When I was younger I was heavily influenced by Noam Chomsky - and still am in some ways. He was always making this point and he was absolutely right.
The weird universe where Griffin’s appearance on Question Time caused his supposed downfall despite he and his party having their best ever electoral performance nine months later. Repeated appearances on QT never did any harm to Farage and his rancid politics, quite the reverse. In fact the rise of NF and UKIP were the main reason for the downfall of the gotch eyed fascist.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Chanel" instead.
Wonder what the impact of this will be on the green vote.
Logically those who care a lot about the environment should go Labour... the line that two parties are all the same on environment clearly doesn't wash now.
But the increased focus on green issues could mean a boost for green party possibly?
I did wonder if this was in part a ploy to dilute Labour’s vote with the Greens, but (a) that suggests a degree of strategic political thinking that is way beyond this PM, and (b) in any case it seems the Tories were just as vulnerable on their green flank as Labour in the locals. Indeed the pumping of shit into the rivers and the massive marine die-offs are probably quite easy to package alongside the net-zero thing.
Traditional conservativism (the clue is in the name) has a streak of environmentalism, and they should be strident and proud about this. But no, the opposite. F*ck business, now f*ck the planet. As I’ve said ad nauseam on here, what are Sunak’s Conservatives actually *for*?
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
The problem for the Tories is that this is a lie that is easily provable.
Remember the 350m on the bus? That was a lie easily provable too.
Lying is a very effective electoral strategy. But I think people forgive the Tories for it because they expect it. Whereas they are disappointed when Labour lie, never more so than over WMD in Iraq.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Yes, it was a disgrace. He's utterly trashed every notion of how someone in his role should behave, both during and after.
This will be one of the weirdest elections ever; essentially two main parties campaigning from opposition. At some point the ‘logic’ will start to unravel, surely.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
The problem for the Tories is that this is a lie that is easily provable.
Didn't work against Boris in 2019.
Though Boris was a much more effective liar than Rishi.
He was also lying about something that could not be empirically proved. They were lies that could only be exposed through experience.
A few threads ago, a nameless Francophile @Leon accused me of saying the RWC was crap (never - I am obsessed with it)...because of the minnow teams getting hammered. No I didnt. I would prefer to see a reduction in teams from 20 to 16 to shorten the length of the tournament, and I am concerned that someone will get seriously injured due the mismatches.
One way around this is to have two tier qualification - have top 12 qualifying teams joining at first round proper consisting of 16 teams in 4 groups of 4. So first round taking 3 weekends instead of 5. Meanwhile second group of 8 (or 12/16) qualifying teams meet up one (or two) weeks earlier to play in preliminary round for final 4 places. This would present some logistical problems but nothing imsurmountable.
This would have the additional benefit of presenting opportunities for nameless jobbing travel writers eg @Leon to report on suburban fast food joints.
Relax, Penddu. Leon does it for the laughs, and it was funny, so it doesn't matter whether it was true or not.
As to the substance of the matter, I'm ambivalent. I can see why the lower tier nations need these matches, and I don't mind if it results in 100-0 drubbings, though as Leon correctly points out the weak side doesn't always read the script properly. The Urus are particularly illiterate in this respect.
Rugby isn't like football though. If Man City take on the local pub team you get and absurd result but nobody gets hurt. Not so in Rugby. Despite the game's valiant attempts to make it safer, All Blacks v Mountain Ash Working Mens Club is likely to result in some serious injuries.
Though Boris was a much more effective liar than Rishi.
Possibly. Although I note one of them is currently PM, while the other is currently a disgraced ex-MP. So it depends a bit on how you're defining "effective".
Wonder what the impact of this will be on the green vote.
Logically those who care a lot about the environment should go Labour... the line that two parties are all the same on environment clearly doesn't wash now.
But the increased focus on green issues could mean a boost for green party possibly?
It could, but it may also mean that Green voters may be more squeezable in marginals.
Why is Caroline Dineage MP trending in the US overnight?
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
It's not just the alt-right. Freedom of speech matters to Americans, whereas here it is just a slogan wheeled out from time to time when convenient in the land of draconian libel laws, super-injunctions and now this. First Amendment and all that.
Oh indeed, freedom of speech is quite literally written in their Constitution, and is taken much more seriously over there by everyone.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
Andrew Tate doesn’t have his liberty. He is under pre-trial judicial control. Until recently, he was under house arrest. Although that has now been lifted, he still has to remain in his local area. His ability to earn a non-Internet-based living has been severely curtailed since his arrest by due Romanian law.
A point that I don't think has been covered here is so-called 'synthetic fuels', effectively 'biomass petrol'. If the fuel you're putting in your petrol car has already sucked carbon out of the air, it's Net Zero. This is similar to what's being proposed for aeroplanes. It's a big topic of discussion within the EU and was raised in the recent parliamentary debate here too. You keep all your current pumps/infrastructure, you don't have the increased carbon output of manufacturing evs, you don't have the vast strain on the national grid, etc. etc. etc. Seems good to me.
I think that was tried with biofuels. The problem is that land devoted to biofuels is land denied to food crops and you run out of food. Or were you thinking of something else?
I don't know, I only heard the concept of these fuels the other day. I'll have a look.
This will be one of the weirdest elections ever; essentially two main parties campaigning from opposition. At some point the ‘logic’ will start to unravel, surely.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
The problem for the Tories is that this is a lie that is easily provable.
Didn't work against Boris in 2019.
Though Boris was a much more effective liar than Rishi.
He was also lying about something that could not be empirically proved. They were lies that could only be exposed through experience.
For all that he is a revolting narcissist, Spaffer was a very unusual politician who could get away with a lot basically because of the public image he’d crafted for himself as a lovable eccentric rascal. People expected him to lie but he was preferable to Corbyn’s mare-eyed, humourless dogmatism.
A few threads ago, a nameless Francophile @Leon accused me of saying the RWC was crap (never - I am obsessed with it)...because of the minnow teams getting hammered. No I didnt. I would prefer to see a reduction in teams from 20 to 16 to shorten the length of the tournament, and I am concerned that someone will get seriously injured due the mismatches.
One way around this is to have two tier qualification - have top 12 qualifying teams joining at first round proper consisting of 16 teams in 4 groups of 4. So first round taking 3 weekends instead of 5. Meanwhile second group of 8 (or 12/16) qualifying teams meet up one (or two) weeks earlier to play in preliminary round for final 4 places. This would present some logistical problems but nothing imsurmountable.
This would have the additional benefit of presenting opportunities for nameless jobbing travel writers eg @Leon to report on suburban fast food joints.
Relax, Penddu. Leon does it for the laughs, and it was funny, so it doesn't matter whether it was true or not.
As to the substance of the matter, I'm ambivalent. I can see why the lower tier nations need these matches, and I don't mind if it results in 100-0 drubbings, though as Leon correctly points out the weak side doesn't always read the script properly. The Urus are particularly illiterate in this respect.
Rugby isn't like football though. If Man City take on the local pub team you get and absurd result but nobody gets hurt. Not so in Rugby. Despite the game's valiant attempts to make it safer, All Blacks v Mountain Ash Working Mens Club is likely to result in some serious injuries.
What say you?
I’m not Penddu but I’m all for keeping the minnows in. They’re grown ups and can decide on their own safety (and many are pretty chunky anyway), and it’s worth it for the 20:1 chance of an upset.
In fact 20:1 is probably pessimistic. We’ve seen several upsets or near misses in recent RWCs. They are part of what make world cups unique, as opposed to test series.
The furious blob. Thirteen years and still blaming The Blob.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he’s talking about the wider cultural Establishment, rather than the Civil Service, on this occasion.
“[...]
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. /
It's not a ban on petrol cars. It's a ban on new petrol cars.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
The problem for the Tories is that this is a lie that is easily provable.
Remember the 350m on the bus? That was a lie easily provable too.
Lying is a very effective electoral strategy. But I think people forgive the Tories for it because they expect it. Whereas they are disappointed when Labour lie, never more so than over WMD in Iraq.
You get a big like for that, Tim, but in the service of truth I must point out that the Hutton report found that Blair didn't actually lie. He may have stopped a mere milimetre short, and the substance of the matter was that he seriously and dangerously misled Parliament and the Nation. Didn't actually lie though.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Yes, it was a disgrace. He's utterly trashed every notion of how someone in his role should behave, both during and after.
Given the basket case Argentina is, economically, he was totally wrong in his conclusion.
The man was useless in his role and quite a few of the issues we have today are down to his policies of money printing and low interest rates.
A point that I don't think has been covered here is so-called 'synthetic fuels', effectively 'biomass petrol'. If the fuel you're putting in your petrol car has already sucked carbon out of the air, it's Net Zero. This is similar to what's being proposed for aeroplanes. It's a big topic of discussion within the EU and was raised in the recent parliamentary debate here too. You keep all your current pumps/infrastructure, you don't have the increased carbon output of manufacturing evs, you don't have the vast strain on the national grid, etc. etc. etc. Seems good to me.
I think that was tried with biofuels. The problem is that land devoted to biofuels is land denied to food crops and you run out of food. Or were you thinking of something else?
I don't know, I only heard the concept of these fuels the other day. I'll have a look.
I think the biofuels story arc is a shame.
Promising new technology, overhyped, turns out they were being grown on land that was being lost to food crops, big backlash.
But as a result the baby goes out with the bath water. Biofuels from waste or from otherwise unproductive areas are one of very few options to decarbonise aviation.
- companies selling cars in UK still face an EV mandate
- next year they must sell 22% electric vehicles
- 80% by 2030
- so beyond 2030 only a fifth of cars they sell (and falling) can be hybrid, petrol or diesel
I understand this is what is behind the rising price of cheap ICE cars - they get penalised if the manufacturer isn't also selling EV's. I recall reading at one point about Fiat needing to pay 2k in credits for every cheap petrol car they sell. I imagine this is contributing to inflation and demand for second hand ICE vehicles.
A solicitor who worked on cases free of charge for struggling clients killed himself after his low fees contributed to spiralling financial problems.
Marcus Malin, 48, took his own life after fines, including parking tickets, amounted to thousands of pounds of debt and bailiffs came knocking.
An inquest was told that the solicitor was loved by his clients and often conducted cases free, particularly if they involved children, to help those without the means to pay.
Winchester coroner’s court was told that Malin had ended up in financial difficulties and had been due to be investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. He was found dead in his car on December 9 near West Tytherley in Hampshire, about ten miles from his home in Salisbury. A post-mortem examination found that he had died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
The hearing was told that the solicitor had left a note on his phone reading: “I have got myself into a mess being that I charged so very little. I would charge a few hundred pounds, if anything. I did so to help people.”
Michael Malin, his father, told the court that his son had been popular. He said: “He was an individual who was always bright and happy on the outside, but his mother and myself used to say we didn’t know him.
“I think Marcus was particularly soft and he would go for cases where children were involved and he didn’t have much money because he was doing things for people that couldn’t afford a lot.
“He had financial problems because he did things for free and he got to the stage of failing to pay parking fines.”
Malin said that his son’s debt amounted to thousands of pounds. The solicitor was self-employed but worked under the umbrella of a law firm, which meant he could choose cases himself.
Before his death, Malin was contacted on an unknown matter by the SRA — the regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales — which meant he might have been investigated.
His father told the inquest: “Our thought is that the SRA probably contacted Marcus before his death and he knew it would end with him in a lot of trouble because solicitors aren’t allowed to have county court convictions. We always talked openly about things but there was this side to him where he didn’t tell us everything.”
A few threads ago, a nameless Francophile @Leon accused me of saying the RWC was crap (never - I am obsessed with it)...because of the minnow teams getting hammered. No I didnt. I would prefer to see a reduction in teams from 20 to 16 to shorten the length of the tournament, and I am concerned that someone will get seriously injured due the mismatches.
One way around this is to have two tier qualification - have top 12 qualifying teams joining at first round proper consisting of 16 teams in 4 groups of 4. So first round taking 3 weekends instead of 5. Meanwhile second group of 8 (or 12/16) qualifying teams meet up one (or two) weeks earlier to play in preliminary round for final 4 places. This would present some logistical problems but nothing imsurmountable.
This would have the additional benefit of presenting opportunities for nameless jobbing travel writers eg @Leon to report on suburban fast food joints.
Relax, Penddu. Leon does it for the laughs, and it was funny, so it doesn't matter whether it was true or not.
As to the substance of the matter, I'm ambivalent. I can see why the lower tier nations need these matches, and I don't mind if it results in 100-0 drubbings, though as Leon correctly points out the weak side doesn't always read the script properly. The Urus are particularly illiterate in this respect.
Rugby isn't like football though. If Man City take on the local pub team you get and absurd result but nobody gets hurt. Not so in Rugby. Despite the game's valiant attempts to make it safer, All Blacks v Mountain Ash Working Mens Club is likely to result in some serious injuries.
What say you?
I’m not Penddu but I’m all for keeping the minnows in. They’re grown ups and can decide on their own safety (and many are pretty chunky anyway), and it’s worth it for the 20:1 chance of an upset.
In fact 20:1 is probably pessimistic. We’ve seen several upsets or near misses in recent RWCs. They are part of what make world cups unique, as opposed to test series.
Point taken, Tim, though I would have more sympathy with Namibia if they were actually more Namibian. The team is howver largely comprised of South Africans who know they will never be picked for Saffers first team and quailify for their new Nation only by virtue of once having had a few beers in a Windhoek bar.
A point that I don't think has been covered here is so-called 'synthetic fuels', effectively 'biomass petrol'. If the fuel you're putting in your petrol car has already sucked carbon out of the air, it's Net Zero. This is similar to what's being proposed for aeroplanes. It's a big topic of discussion within the EU and was raised in the recent parliamentary debate here too. You keep all your current pumps/infrastructure, you don't have the increased carbon output of manufacturing evs, you don't have the vast strain on the national grid, etc. etc. etc. Seems good to me.
I think that was tried with biofuels. The problem is that land devoted to biofuels is land denied to food crops and you run out of food. Or were you thinking of something else?
I don't know, I only heard the concept of these fuels the other day. I'll have a look.
I think the biofuels story arc is a shame.
Promising new technology, overhyped, turns out they were being grown on land that was being lost to food crops, big backlash.
But as a result the baby goes out with the bath water. Biofuels from waste or from otherwise unproductive areas are one of very few options to decarbonise aviation.
There’s a lot of research into synthetic fuel going on in the motorsport community right now, with the F1 teams and Porsche involved. It’s a few years off being cheaper than aviation fuel, but it could get there. The key is cheaper solar power, that’s running carbon capture.
It's a vicious circle where voters are goaded to make stupid choices that make the country poorer and the voters more angry and cynical and open to further goading... And then one day you wake up and realise you've become Argentina. And like Argentina, people who can see through this BS and know where their country is heading will leave, which makes the remaining population easier to manipulate. It's a very dangerous game the Tories are playing, and to what end?
Mark Carney gave a speech recently where he noted that instead of "Singapore on Thames" as promised by the Brexiteers, Truss delivered "Argentina on the Channel" instead.
Yes, it was a disgrace. He's utterly trashed every notion of how someone in his role should behave, both during and after.
You were advocating for free speech and railing against cancel culture only the other day.
Now you're condemning someone who is objectively well qualified to express a view on economic policy for doing so, more than three years after he ceased to be Governor of the Bank of England.
Comments
Lets see what happens to those 2019 Con voters who say they are "Don't Know" > I think they'll start firming up in the CON column from now onwards... but we'll see...
One thing is for sure. The 2024 General Election starts NOW!
#ThisIsIt #HereWeGoAgain #LordSaveMe
One way around this is to have two tier qualification - have top 12 qualifying teams joining at first round proper consisting of 16 teams in 4 groups of 4. So first round taking 3 weekends instead of 5. Meanwhile second group of 8 (or 12/16) qualifying teams meet up one (or two) weeks earlier to play in preliminary round for final 4 places. This would present some logistical problems but nothing imsurmountable.
This would have the additional benefit of presenting opportunities for nameless jobbing travel writers eg @Leon to report on suburban fast food joints.
Brendan Clarke-Smith: "Ford's problem is their car sales have been dwindling for years. Perhaps they saw this as an artificial way to boost them in the short term."
Jackie Doyle Price: "Incidentally Ford..."
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1704447790774997350
DT online front page:
With the Leading Article describing the decision as “Commendable”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2023/09/20/rishi-sunak-net-zero-shift-commendable/
On Monday afternoon, Mark Harper, the transport secretary, appeared to suggest that the government was sticking to its plan to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-rishi-sunak-s-net-zero-delay-blindsided-ministers-jh3d2hjbv (£££)
Apart from that it is abysmal policy making.
What vestiges of credibility he had as the 'sensible' replacement for Truss et al are gone.
The Tories are going to lose anyway. Sunak has just cemented his legacy as another useless PM.
I’m not sure what to think of this one, apparently genuine letter written to Rumble’s CEO in the US, from the head of the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee, coming very close to suggesting that Rumble should be demonetising Russell Brand - not for anything he’s posted on their site, but just because he’s a bad person.
The Rumble CEO published the letter, and a quite forthright reply about freedom of speech.
https://x.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584929026216118?s=61
Comments underneath very supportive of Rumble.
Poland will no longer send weapons to Ukraine, says PM, as grain dispute escalates
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/21/poland-stop-ukraine-weapons-supply-grain-exports-dispute
“There is now clear green water between the parties, making life trickier for Sir Keir Starmer. But I hope Sunak realises just how vicious the backlash will be: the Blob, the cultural aristocracy and myriad pseudo-Tories will unleash every dirty trick in the book to force him to back down. Broadcasters will continue to be hysterically negative, as will the clerisy; he will be accused of hating the “youth”; the Church, the Left-wing think-tanks, big business and charities will continue to condemn him; there will be leaks, resignations, and attempts at ousting him. It will be nasty and frenzied, but he must hold firm.
“Yet by any rational standard, Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time is a dangerously utopian policy that would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. The same holds true for the other policies Sunak is delaying, including the ban on new oil and gas boilers. They are all examples of what the philosopher Rob Henderson calls “luxury beliefs”, ideas performatively adopted by hypocritical jet-setting elites to highlight their high social status, even though they inflict immense costs on those who can’t afford expensive electric cars or spare thousands to replace a boiler with technology that is not yet ready.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/net-zero-rishi-sunak-blob-heresy/
Research finds breakdown in parents’ social contract with schools since Covid lockdowns and cost of living crisis
...
... some parents no longer believe it is their responsibility to ensure that their child is in school every day, triggering “a full-blown national crisis” in school attendance that will require “a monumental, multi-service effort” if it is to be reversed, the report states.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/21/parents-in-england-no-longer-see-daily-school-attendance-as-vital-report-finds
Unless he's suggesting the ban is on all cars, as opposed to new ones. Which is obviously untrue.
The article is as risible as Sunak's new policy.
To be fair to Allister Heath, he's a numpty.
Electric vehicle targets will stay to hit 2030 deadline
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-rejects-reprieve-for-petrol-and-diesel-cars-kcnxxl7kd (£££)
The Times last weekend. A week is a long time in politics.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/20/revealed-how-russia-deliberately-targeted-kherson-hospitals
...“Russia’s activities in Kherson are strikingly reminiscent of Russian tactics in Syria, where apparently punitive strikes were delivered day after day for years in rebel-held areas of Idlib and Aleppo,” CIR said. These were “unconnected to any ground operations”, and typically directed at “medical infrastructure” and water treatment plants...
...According to Kyiv, Russia has launched more than 2,000 drone attacks on Ukraine over the past year. Most sent to the Ukrainian capital have been shot down. In Kherson, however, the Russians are using barrelled artillery, which is impossible to intercept. They occupied the city for nine months and are familiar with its locations...
One survivor told a survey they are "more afraid of the police than being raped again" as 56% of respondents said they are unlikely to report another rape to officers.
https://news.sky.com/story/three-quarters-of-rape-and-sexual-assault-survivors-say-mental-health-worsened-by-police-report-12965587
But one thing that Mike has written does stand out as incongrous. He says, 'being attacked by the former Tory Prime Minister might be no bad thing.'
Yet, that former Tory Prime Minister is the one whose 2019 voters are left out on the margins - Mike's great undecideds and don't knows. They are the people Boris reached in the anomalous 2019 Get Brexit Done election. They don't like Sunak because he shafted their man.
Lose Boris, you definitely lose the election.
Funnily enough I was chatting with a centrist tory the other evening - she came to dinner, showing was a magnanimous and open-hearted girl I am (;) and she said that she thinks the tories ditching Boris was a mistake, that he didn't really do anything "that" bad, and that the electorate would have got over it.
I'm not saying I agree. It's just that Boris is still much loved by some tory voters.
There’s a running theme on this subject through a lot of American discussion, mainly but not exclusively on the right and among libertarians, that social media platforms are trying to censor certain viewpoints ahead of the election next year.
Youtube especially is in the firing line, with their seemingly arbitrary demonetisation, shadow banning, and banning of accounts with little recourse. It was said to be one of the reasons behind Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, and documents released by that company showed conversations with governments - including the US government - around certain specific accounts, as Rumble have released today.
Rumble was deliberately set up to be resistant to censorship, hosting their own servers and payment processing, and designed as web-first rather than app-first. Freedom of speech is their philosophy.
Obviously, it goes without saying that the likes of Russell Brand and Andrew Tate are horrible human beings, but that doesn’t mean they can’t earn a living while they still have their liberty.
The Reactionary Right's last railings against the dying of the light.
The difference between the truth and Alister Heath's mistake is vast.
Does anybody want to hazard a guess at what it will be in 7 years?
This measure makes Sunak look like a fucking idiot to everbody except those who didn't understand the policy in the first place. Which I suppose is the point.
People genuinely think the government will come round and scrap their cars and rip out their boilers.
The thing to remember is that. Lot of people will be thinking that because all they will see is the words “ban petrol cars 2030”..
All these ideas, rule of law, innocent before proven guilty etc, are disappearing. What is most alarming is that there seems to be no interest in restoring them.
The only question is whether the Conservative Blob is stupid and ignorant themselves, or whether they are knowingly lying to con the stupid and ignorant.
Neither is a good look in a government.
Sunak didn't bother to think or ask about the approach of businesses in the sector, or the impact on investment. Then Tory MPs have a hissy fit when it turns out that serious business leaders weirdly aren't pathetically grateful about the rug being pulled out from under them for the sake of a couple of days of drooling cobblers from cretins like Allister Heath in the Telegraph.
Makes me feel ill. I'm going for a run.
Here’s libertarian commentator Tim Pool’s podcast from last night, the title is:
“Timcast IRL - Russell Brand Conspiracy PROVEN TRUE, UK GOV CAUGHT Targeting Him”
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vX1bpykg_vY
Now, there’s understandable confusion between UK government and UK Parliament, and between UK and US law on freedom of speech, but letters like this definitely add to Brand’s own narrative.
What Dineage and her Committee have now managed to achieve, is a lot of fence-sitters - at least in the US - coming down on Brand’s side, that he’s being targeted by “them” because of his outspoken views on subjects xy&z.
That means there’s 16m ICE-only cars, and 24m hybrid and electric cars?
Or do you mean the share of *NEW* ICE-only cars is only 40%?
…
I do think however that people don't necessarily respond to this in the same way as they did for cases like Jimmy Savile. I was talking to some women a couple of days ago at the swimming pool, they just seemed to feel sorry for Brand. There was no sense of disgust or outrage.
If she does nothing the media goes “Caroline Dineage refuses to intervene in Russell Brand case” / “Senior MP believes Brand should be able to make money from videos attacking his victims” etc etc
It’s much harder to defend an abstract principle like innocent until proven guilty.
We have shit politicians because all the incentives we have established point them in that direction
This letter only feeds into the Brand narrative that ‘they’ are out to get him. It’s a ridiculous intervention.
FFS. Sunak's scaremongering is actually working.
“Saville cops to probe Brand”
Strictly speaking I’m sure it’s accurate - they say the unit set up to look at sexual offences is involved in the investigation
But talk about guilt by association!
The best recent UK example, is when Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time. It was the start of his party’s downfall, as everyone could suddenly see him for what he was, in his own words.
Trying to censor people is a dangerous path to tread.
Before yesterday's announcement, the UK was going for a soft ban on ICE (hybrids were still allowed in new cars) starting 2030, and the EU for a hard ban (no fossil fuels at all in new cars) in 2035.
Is the Sunak scheme to copy the EU (probably a mistake business-wise, but also probably a similar trajectory overall), or to shift the UK's soft ban back to 2035 (probably a mistake business-wise and a bad thing for the planet)?
So conventionally fueled vehicles are already less than half the market, and shrinking.
Though as I understood it is only EV and PHEV vehicles that were exempt from the 2030 ban, not all hybrids, so 27.8% of August sales meet the old 2030 target.
I live in a flat in a single glazed unlisted period building, no cavity walls etc. I've looked in to it in detail and no energy saving measures are remotely economic. Many would destroy the appearance and character of the building. For what purpose? The total energy (gas/electric) bill each year is £1200, over 50% of which are standing charges.
This change of direction may actually mean that I can eventually sell the flat to someone else without them being put off by the EPC grading system which is wholly inappropriate for a building like this.
This is fairly important to those of us who have looked at the prices and volumes of cars now being built, and realised that the future of motoring looks like to involve becoming Cuba on Thames as we have to make our current cars last a very long time indeed.
Leaving aside the fuel question, on principle I'll never own a car that's connected to the Internet so the manufacturer can push updates out to it. I want to own my car, not have the potential for the manufacturer to go all Apple and irreversibly cripple it so I have to buy a new one (Merc would definitely do this if they thought they could get away with it, given they are as immoral as charging subscriptions to use the heated seats with which their cars are already fitted).
The most connected cars of all, are the EVs. If your insurance company writes off an old Tesla for relatively minor damage, that car can never again be charged on the Supercharger network.
ULEZ is entirely separate, affected hardly any cars, and ultimately if our democratically elected local politicians wish to extend those areas that's up to them and their constituents. I appreciate people want to deliberately conflate the two policies for political advantage though.
The second para - I entirely agree, and it's an issue across pretty much everything now. A bigger issue for me is those touch screens over switches - hugely distracting if I'm trying to turn the air con on or something. And impossible to fix.
1. Sunak is clearly aware the Tories are in deep trouble.
2. His gamble is that strong signals Net Zero is no big deal will chime.
3. But the hard policy dividing line is a deadline for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.
4. He has traded a lot for very little.
"While social attitudes have moved seemingly inexorably towards a more liberal perspective, the BSA notes that attitudes towards the role and size of the state have fluctuated, with support for increased tax and spending, for example, swinging from 32% in 1983 to 63% in 1998 before falling to 31% in 2010.
It is now 55%. “So far as the public are concerned at least, the era of smaller government that Margaret Thatcher aimed to promulgate – and which Liz Truss briefly tried to restore in the autumn of 2022 with her ill-fated ‘dash for growth’ – now seems a world away,” the study concludes."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/21/britain-is-much-more-liberal-minded-than-is-was-40-years-ago-study-finds
This will be one of the weirdest elections ever; essentially two main parties campaigning from opposition. At some point the ‘logic’ will start to unravel, surely.
Britain is a liberal country.
Truss and Sunak both believe fundamentally that Britain should go against the tide. They are techno-optimists, with little interest in what they think of as backwards, retrograde activities such as manufacturing, and a Thatcher-derived allergy to phrases like “industrial policy” and “subsidy”.
If Treasury officials believe markets would bear it, after all, they would always rather cut taxes than, say, fund a multibillion-pound nuclear-power building programme. They would always buy cheap over British. They would always favour banks over factories, which is why there is a Treasury director-general for financial services but none for manufacturing. In this, the mandarins, Sunak and Truss think as one.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-is-closer-to-truss-than-hed-like-to-think-g3hv9gdf3
I do not think a generalisation like this is helpful. I am sure this is the case for some but it is certainly not my experience.
Being less tolerant of others views is one thing, taking it to the workplace is another.
"Generation Z can't work alongside people with different views and don't have the skills to debate"
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/generation-z-can-t-work-alongside-people-with-different-views-and-don-t-have-the-skills-to-debate-says-channel-4-boss-as-she-cites-the-pandemic-as-the-main-cause-of-the-workplace-challenge/ar-AA1h1DpG?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=4e455a7e391a4b319f30906205c89cac&ei=7
The alternative is that Rishi is doing this because he really is very right wing indeed.
None of which explains why he is doing it now.
Logically those who care a lot about the environment should go Labour... the line that two parties are all the same on environment clearly doesn't wash now.
But the increased focus on green issues could mean a boost for green party possibly?
Though Boris was a much more effective liar than Rishi.
The idea that you can broad-brush generalise in this way about *any* ‘generation’ is just bollocks. But tbh Alex Mahon comes across a bit Grampa Simpson ‘old man yells at cloud’ here. Young people today, eh. Twas ever thus.
Repeated appearances on QT never did any harm to Farage and his rancid politics, quite the reverse. In fact the rise of NF and UKIP were the main reason for the downfall of the gotch eyed fascist.
Traditional conservativism (the clue is in the name) has a streak of environmentalism, and they should be strident and proud about this. But no, the opposite. F*ck business, now f*ck the planet. As I’ve said ad nauseam on here, what are Sunak’s Conservatives actually *for*?
Lying is a very effective electoral strategy. But I think people forgive the Tories for it because they expect it. Whereas they are disappointed when Labour lie, never more so than over WMD in Iraq.
Scoop by @Petercampbell1 & me
- companies selling cars in UK still face an EV mandate
- next year they must sell 22% electric vehicles
- 80% by 2030
- so beyond 2030 only a fifth of cars they sell (and falling) can be hybrid, petrol or diesel
As to the substance of the matter, I'm ambivalent. I can see why the lower tier nations need these matches, and I don't mind if it results in 100-0 drubbings, though as Leon correctly points out the weak side doesn't always read the script properly. The Urus are particularly illiterate in this respect.
Rugby isn't like football though. If Man City take on the local pub team you get and absurd result but nobody gets hurt. Not so in Rugby. Despite the game's valiant attempts to make it safer, All Blacks v Mountain Ash Working Mens Club is likely to result in some serious injuries.
What say you?
Sunak doesn’t have this.
In fact 20:1 is probably pessimistic. We’ve seen several upsets or near misses in recent RWCs. They are part of what make world cups unique, as opposed to test series.
Hopefully we'll be spared the spamming about the petition updates.
The man was useless in his role and quite a few of the issues we have today are down to his policies of money printing and low interest rates.
Promising new technology, overhyped, turns out they were being grown on land that was being lost to food crops, big backlash.
But as a result the baby goes out with the bath water. Biofuels from waste or from otherwise unproductive areas are one of very few options to decarbonise aviation.
A solicitor who worked on cases free of charge for struggling clients killed himself after his low fees contributed to spiralling financial problems.
Marcus Malin, 48, took his own life after fines, including parking tickets, amounted to thousands of pounds of debt and bailiffs came knocking.
An inquest was told that the solicitor was loved by his clients and often conducted cases free, particularly if they involved children, to help those without the means to pay.
Winchester coroner’s court was told that Malin had ended up in financial difficulties and had been due to be investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. He was found dead in his car on December 9 near West Tytherley in Hampshire, about ten miles from his home in Salisbury. A post-mortem examination found that he had died of carbon monoxide poisoning.
The hearing was told that the solicitor had left a note on his phone reading: “I have got myself into a mess being that I charged so very little. I would charge a few hundred pounds, if anything. I did so to help people.”
Michael Malin, his father, told the court that his son had been popular. He said: “He was an individual who was always bright and happy on the outside, but his mother and myself used to say we didn’t know him.
“I think Marcus was particularly soft and he would go for cases where children were involved and he didn’t have much money because he was doing things for people that couldn’t afford a lot.
“He had financial problems because he did things for free and he got to the stage of failing to pay parking fines.”
Malin said that his son’s debt amounted to thousands of pounds. The solicitor was self-employed but worked under the umbrella of a law firm, which meant he could choose cases himself.
Before his death, Malin was contacted on an unknown matter by the SRA — the regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales — which meant he might have been investigated.
His father told the inquest: “Our thought is that the SRA probably contacted Marcus before his death and he knew it would end with him in a lot of trouble because solicitors aren’t allowed to have county court convictions. We always talked openly about things but there was this side to him where he didn’t tell us everything.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suicide-of-solicitor-who-would-not-charge-the-poor-6sq0wgfv5
Kind of undermines the underdog glamour for me.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37872650/formula-1-auto-racing-sustainable-fuel/
Now you're condemning someone who is objectively well qualified to express a view on economic policy for doing so, more than three years after he ceased to be Governor of the Bank of England.