Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
No. You don't get to go early just because you don't like the current government any more than people did at the fag end of Brown's tenure, or Major's or anyone else. That's democracy.
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
They're trying to, but after 13 years of Tory government there are so many potholes in the roads that it's virtually impossible.
Now some convincing evidence on X that a local landowner is implicated. Kept complaining about people parking on his land to see the tree
Throw him in the dungeons of Bamburgh Castle?
Enough of this fucking vandalism. If the "newly aarrested duo" get convicted for the Crooked House arson, put them inside for ten years. Ditto here
Controversial statement time - was the tree protected by any preservation orders? If not, and the landowner took it down, has any offence occurred (other than grave offence to the nation)?
Quick glance at Google suggests the tree would have to be on "your" land for you to escape legal consequences, and also the tree would have to be non-listed
However this is a UNESCO site. Hadrian's Wall. Which makes it extra complex?
I am pretty sure an inventive police force can come up with *something*, and if they can't then throw the villain to the social media wolves, anyway. Force them to emigrate
It may be a UNESCO site, but surely that's the wall, not a weed (albeit a large and photogenic one)?
You need a felling licence for a tree over a specific diameter, protected or otherwise.
Anyway, there's no chance this will be treated as just a tree in a field.
Moreover, it doesn't matter. IANAL but the tree wanker has surely broken this law:
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets - including World Heritage Sites"
How can this NOT have harmed the value of Hadrian's Wall? There are local businesses literally dependant on this iconic tree, for tourists
No idea what kind of sentence you would get, looks like anything from a fine to 10 years jail
However the greater punishment will be the social media savaging
Tree = not Roman or ancient. And look where the tree is. EH do spend a lot of money *removing* trees from near the foundations of ancient monuments, etc. The defence brief would argue that the vandal had helped preserve the site ... OTOH the very fact it has not been removed by EH sure argues it's seen as partr of the ensemble.
Apparently the tree was on land owned by the National Trust, so there is no way you can - legally - just cut it down. You don't own it, the nation does
I genuinely can’t think of another British PM so detached from, and seemingly so incurious about, the country they govern. Sunak gives no impression of having any interest in anything beyond his spreadsheets and his family. I think people can sense this.
David Cameron? Wasn't that one of Theresa May's complaints, that Cameron's chumocracy did not understand ordinary Conservative voters?
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
No. You don't get to go early just because you don't like the current government any more than people did at the fag end of Brown's tenure, or Major's or anyone else. That's democracy.
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
They're trying to, but after 13 years of Tory government there are so many potholes in the roads that it's virtually impossible.
A friend went to a conference in the Italian lakes a week or so ago. He travelled by train there and back and his comments - other countries trains are also delayed, and you can find scruffy bits in other countries too.
We have our problems, but too often we navel gaze and convince ourselves that the UK is a shit hole, when its not.
I'm as keen as the next chap for Labour to have a go, but I am also a realist - don't expect much to change, other than the honeymoon in the media for a while.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
No. You don't get to go early just because you don't like the current government any more than people did at the fag end of Brown's tenure, or Major's or anyone else. That's democracy.
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Britain does have relatively long maximum lengths to its Parliamentary terms. It would still be democratic to shorten this maximum length.
It's worth thinking about.
Assuming the Tories are turfed out at the next election, there will have been three years out of the last thirty where Britain was governed by a fag-end government that was out of ideas, that the electorate wanted rid of, lurching from crisis to crisis, and deferring important decisions because it had lost the ability to make them.
Shorten the maximum length of a Parliament to four years. You would get rid of the worst 10% of British governments at a stroke.
Now some convincing evidence on X that a local landowner is implicated. Kept complaining about people parking on his land to see the tree
Throw him in the dungeons of Bamburgh Castle?
Enough of this fucking vandalism. If the "newly aarrested duo" get convicted for the Crooked House arson, put them inside for ten years. Ditto here
Controversial statement time - was the tree protected by any preservation orders? If not, and the landowner took it down, has any offence occurred (other than grave offence to the nation)?
If no order, it is no offence for the owner to chop it down. It's in the same category as pruning your own roses.
All the trees on my estate are protected. We also have brambles and rhododendrons. Every so often we have a tree surgeon who clears dead wood, cuts dangerous branches, and other tidying. We asked the local authority which plants were regarded as trees. The best we could get was 'if it looks like a tree it is a tree.'
Apparently the tree was on land owned by the National Trust, so there is no way you can - legally - just cut it down. You don't own it, the nation does
Unless those renowned wokesters at the NT cut it down because it was planted by the grandchild of a slave-owner, maybe?
Now some convincing evidence on X that a local landowner is implicated. Kept complaining about people parking on his land to see the tree
Throw him in the dungeons of Bamburgh Castle?
Enough of this fucking vandalism. If the "newly aarrested duo" get convicted for the Crooked House arson, put them inside for ten years. Ditto here
Controversial statement time - was the tree protected by any preservation orders? If not, and the landowner took it down, has any offence occurred (other than grave offence to the nation)?
Quick glance at Google suggests the tree would have to be on "your" land for you to escape legal consequences, and also the tree would have to be non-listed
However this is a UNESCO site. Hadrian's Wall. Which makes it extra complex?
I am pretty sure an inventive police force can come up with *something*, and if they can't then throw the villain to the social media wolves, anyway. Force them to emigrate
It may be a UNESCO site, but surely that's the wall, not a weed (albeit a large and photogenic one)?
You need a felling licence for a tree over a specific diameter, protected or otherwise.
Anyway, there's no chance this will be treated as just a tree in a field.
Moreover, it doesn't matter. IANAL but the tree wanker has surely broken this law:
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets - including World Heritage Sites"
How can this NOT have harmed the value of Hadrian's Wall? There are local businesses literally dependant on this iconic tree, for tourists
No idea what kind of sentence you would get, looks like anything from a fine to 10 years jail
However the greater punishment will be the social media savaging
Tree = not Roman or ancient. And look where the tree is. EH do spend a lot of money *removing* trees from near the foundations of ancient monuments, etc. The defence brief would argue that the vandal had helped preserve the site ... OTOH the very fact it has not been removed by EH sure argues it's seen as partr of the ensemble.
He had probably come across the tree in the storm, seen that the wind was threatening to fell the tree causing untold damage to the wall. He has done the nation a favour by felling it as he did.
I think its George Cross for gallantry and elevation to the peerage tout suite...
Now some convincing evidence on X that a local landowner is implicated. Kept complaining about people parking on his land to see the tree
Throw him in the dungeons of Bamburgh Castle?
Enough of this fucking vandalism. If the "newly aarrested duo" get convicted for the Crooked House arson, put them inside for ten years. Ditto here
Controversial statement time - was the tree protected by any preservation orders? If not, and the landowner took it down, has any offence occurred (other than grave offence to the nation)?
Quick glance at Google suggests the tree would have to be on "your" land for you to escape legal consequences, and also the tree would have to be non-listed
However this is a UNESCO site. Hadrian's Wall. Which makes it extra complex?
I am pretty sure an inventive police force can come up with *something*, and if they can't then throw the villain to the social media wolves, anyway. Force them to emigrate
It may be a UNESCO site, but surely that's the wall, not a weed (albeit a large and photogenic one)?
You need a felling licence for a tree over a specific diameter, protected or otherwise.
Anyway, there's no chance this will be treated as just a tree in a field.
Having read the leaflet I can see that's the case, but there seem to be exceptions (5m2) - how is that measured? Total wood? Does it mean the spread of the tree?
Volume of timber. You have to estimate it. Also, you can only cut 2m3 if you intend to sell it (clearly that's not the case here).
This was obviously a large tree but 5m3 is quite a lot of wood, although I thought you were only allowed to make this up from thinning out smaller diameter trees and not fully grown ones.
Anyway, as I say, that's not going to be how this is treated anyway. There's no chance it wasn't protected.
All these rules assumes that the applicant is the landowner, too.
Now some convincing evidence on X that a local landowner is implicated. Kept complaining about people parking on his land to see the tree
Throw him in the dungeons of Bamburgh Castle?
Enough of this fucking vandalism. If the "newly aarrested duo" get convicted for the Crooked House arson, put them inside for ten years. Ditto here
Controversial statement time - was the tree protected by any preservation orders? If not, and the landowner took it down, has any offence occurred (other than grave offence to the nation)?
Quick glance at Google suggests the tree would have to be on "your" land for you to escape legal consequences, and also the tree would have to be non-listed
However this is a UNESCO site. Hadrian's Wall. Which makes it extra complex?
I am pretty sure an inventive police force can come up with *something*, and if they can't then throw the villain to the social media wolves, anyway. Force them to emigrate
It may be a UNESCO site, but surely that's the wall, not a weed (albeit a large and photogenic one)?
You need a felling licence for a tree over a specific diameter, protected or otherwise.
Anyway, there's no chance this will be treated as just a tree in a field.
Moreover, it doesn't matter. IANAL but the tree wanker has surely broken this law:
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets - including World Heritage Sites"
How can this NOT have harmed the value of Hadrian's Wall? There are local businesses literally dependant on this iconic tree, for tourists
No idea what kind of sentence you would get, looks like anything from a fine to 10 years jail
However the greater punishment will be the social media savaging
Tree = not Roman or ancient. And look where the tree is. EH do spend a lot of money *removing* trees from near the foundations of ancient monuments, etc. The defence brief would argue that the vandal had helped preserve the site ... OTOH the very fact it has not been removed by EH sure argues it's seen as partr of the ensemble.
The whole importance of Hadrian's wall is pretty ambiguous. Obviously the Romans are no longer around to say 'our wall', the Scots like it because it showed how ghastly they were (the 'and are' escapes them), and the English like it because it makes a handy dividing line where we can't be arsed to invade.
On topic, in a very general way: "Some 31% of Americans told pollsters they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement: “If one ethnic group becomes richer, this generally comes at the expense of other groups in the country.”
Could something similar be true in the UK? (Though perhaps more often with class or region, than ethnic group.) That would make it very difficult for your politicians to discuss many issues.
I note the latest YouGov demographic cross-break for 18-24 (the one with 1% for the Tories) has Lib Dems on 9%. It's been a feature of the last few years that Lib Dem support has hardly any age variation. An ever so slight peak in the mid-life, working parent group but otherwise pretty flat.
Like the baseload nuclear power of polling demographics. Once a Lib Dem always a Lib Dem.
Daily Mail becomes part of the cancel culture by terminating Dan Wootton's contract following the Laurence Fox/Ava Evans scandal.
He apologised. Never apologise. It doesn't work. It just makes things worse.
I think it depends.
A deep, heartfelt apology CAN work but only if people think it's genuine.
In the case of Dan Wootton nobody believes he is genuinely sorry given his appalling behaviour over the past several years, not to mention Lozza leaking his texts yesterday morning showing he'd found the whole episode funny.
I genuinely think Lozza is out of his mind on drunk and drugs so doesn't know what he's saying half the time but what's Woottons excuse? He's just an odd, shit-stirring, nasty piece of work, IMO.
Now some convincing evidence on X that a local landowner is implicated. Kept complaining about people parking on his land to see the tree
Throw him in the dungeons of Bamburgh Castle?
Enough of this fucking vandalism. If the "newly aarrested duo" get convicted for the Crooked House arson, put them inside for ten years. Ditto here
Controversial statement time - was the tree protected by any preservation orders? If not, and the landowner took it down, has any offence occurred (other than grave offence to the nation)?
Quick glance at Google suggests the tree would have to be on "your" land for you to escape legal consequences, and also the tree would have to be non-listed
However this is a UNESCO site. Hadrian's Wall. Which makes it extra complex?
I am pretty sure an inventive police force can come up with *something*, and if they can't then throw the villain to the social media wolves, anyway. Force them to emigrate
It may be a UNESCO site, but surely that's the wall, not a weed (albeit a large and photogenic one)?
You need a felling licence for a tree over a specific diameter, protected or otherwise.
Anyway, there's no chance this will be treated as just a tree in a field.
Moreover, it doesn't matter. IANAL but the tree wanker has surely broken this law:
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets - including World Heritage Sites"
How can this NOT have harmed the value of Hadrian's Wall? There are local businesses literally dependant on this iconic tree, for tourists
No idea what kind of sentence you would get, looks like anything from a fine to 10 years jail
However the greater punishment will be the social media savaging
Tree = not Roman or ancient. And look where the tree is. EH do spend a lot of money *removing* trees from near the foundations of ancient monuments, etc. The defence brief would argue that the vandal had helped preserve the site ... OTOH the very fact it has not been removed by EH sure argues it's seen as partr of the ensemble.
The whole importance of Hadrian's wall is pretty ambiguous. Obviously the Romans are no longer around to say 'our wall', the Scots like it because it showed how ghastly they were (the 'and are' escapes them), and the English like it because it makes a handy dividing line where we can't be arsed to invade.
Pretty sure the tree-fellers can be done under this section of the law on Criminal Damage
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets to this and future generations. These assets may include Scheduled Monuments; Conservation Areas; Grade 1 and 2 Listed Buildings; World Heritage Sites; Protected Marine Wreck Sites and Military Remains; and other sites of archaeological interest."
That isn't a section of legislation on criminal damage - it's just CPS guidance on dealing with a particular category of crime, and goes on to say that the preferred approach on what they call "heritage crime" is NOT via the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
In terms of damage to a World Heritage Site, in any event I strongly suspect that the UNESCO World Heritage List would refer to Hadrian's Wall itself rather than things around it, as the point is protection of remaining fragments of the frontier of the Roman Empire (and indeed the tree, whilst old, is nowhere near being Roman era).
They probably will find an offence with more severe penalties than unlicensed felling to bring charges on, but I'm not sure it'll be this (indeed, as I say, the very link you've posted explicitly discourages a criminal damage charge).
Apparently the tree was on land owned by the National Trust, so there is no way you can - legally - just cut it down. You don't own it, the nation does
Unless those renowned wokesters at the NT cut it down because it was planted by the grandchild of a slave-owner, maybe?
God knows what this crap is meant to be, not humour, but a 16 year old has been arrested in connection with it according to the local press
The felled sycamore also looks remarkably similar to the Tories' logo. I'm going with an aggrieved red-waller making a symbolic point: Rishi's betrayal of northern England over HS2 and Levelling Up.
Nah, it's a Scot Nat.
Typical. Unbelievable how many people think that southern Northumberland is part of Scotland.
Every fool knows Hadrian's Wall is the border between Scotland & England.
Shirley the Antonine Wall is the revised position of the border?
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
No. You don't get to go early just because you don't like the current government any more than people did at the fag end of Brown's tenure, or Major's or anyone else. That's democracy.
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Britain does have relatively long maximum lengths to its Parliamentary terms. It would still be democratic to shorten this maximum length.
It's worth thinking about.
Assuming the Tories are turfed out at the next election, there will have been three years out of the last thirty where Britain was governed by a fag-end government that was out of ideas, that the electorate wanted rid of, lurching from crisis to crisis, and deferring important decisions because it had lost the ability to make them.
Shorten the maximum length of a Parliament to four years. You would get rid of the worst 10% of British governments at a stroke.
There is an argument for shortening the term and indeed for adopting a system like the States with fixed dates. However as we have seen, once a party achieved a majority it was happy to ditch the fixed term parliament act as soon as it could, in order to retain that advantage of choosing when to go. Not that it worked out well for May...
Against shortening is the inevitable short-termist view of governments. They want to make changes that bear fruit in short order - committing to long term projects is not going to benefit them directing (see HS2). I see it at the Uni - we have VC's for a max of two sets of 4 years. They come in, take stock and then make changes to 'show impact'. Its why we get constant churn in education and the NHS - new ministers may genuinely think they have good ideas, but they ALL want to have somthing to show for their time.
On balance I am happy with the current set up, but maybe a bit more of the PR might be a good thing?
Apparently the tree was on land owned by the National Trust, so there is no way you can - legally - just cut it down. You don't own it, the nation does
In theory... but it's a bit late once it's cut down in the dead of night. It ain't being put back...
Pretty sure the tree-fellers can be done under this section of the law on Criminal Damage
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets to this and future generations. These assets may include Scheduled Monuments; Conservation Areas; Grade 1 and 2 Listed Buildings; World Heritage Sites; Protected Marine Wreck Sites and Military Remains; and other sites of archaeological interest."
That isn't a section of legislation on criminal damage - it's just CPS guidance on dealing with a particular category of crime, and goes on to say that the preferred approach on what they call "heritage crime" is NOT via the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
In terms of damage to a World Heritage Site, in any event I strongly suspect that the UNESCO World Heritage List would refer to Hadrian's Wall itself rather than things around it, as the point is protection of remaining fragments of the frontier of the Roman Empire (and indeed the tree, whilst old, is nowhere near being Roman era).
They probably will find an offence with more severe penalties than unlicensed felling to bring charges on, but I'm not sure it'll be this (indeed, as I say, the very link you've posted explicitly discourages a criminal damage charge).
Fair enough, IANAL likesay
I agree they will find some law to apply, and I am guessing there will be more than one villain. I do not believe this is the act of a solitary 16 year old having a larf on the Tok
Regarding whichever idiot cut down the sycamore, has anyone checked under the tree yet?
You never know, karma and all that.
Hmm, they can also do a lot with forensic science if the polis recover a suspect saw.
Er, why would you leave the saw behind?
The idiots at the Hatton Garden Robbery left their drill behind. With a moderately rare and expensive concrete boring bit. With a serial number on the bit. Said bit purchased on a credit card belonging to one of the robbers.
Regarding whichever idiot cut down the sycamore, has anyone checked under the tree yet?
You never know, karma and all that.
Hmm, they can also do a lot with forensic science if the polis recover a suspect saw.
Er, why would you leave the saw behind?
The idiots at the Hatton Garden Robbery left their drill behind. With a moderately rare and expensive concrete boring bit. With a serial number on the bit. Said bit purchased on a credit card belonging to one of the robbers.
I love this. Essentially very often criminals are not that bright. Or perhaps its just the ones that get caught aren't!
Hmm. A 16 year old who is obviously adept with a forestry chainsaw.
Not convinced this is the whole story...
Could be the child of a tree surgeon who was turned in by his parents after doing it as a prank.
He's 16 years old so there's probably a Tiktok video.
Good point. Some awful social media prank?
However others are saying that a 16 year old would have needed help, driving there, carrying the equipment - all of this at mdnight in a storm. It won't just be him
I guess a 16 year old who is prepared to cut down such a tree isn’t overly worried about driving legally.
Let’s hope if it’s done damage whilst falling to Hadrian’s wall they can do the culprit for damage to a listed monument.
I just don't believe this is one sixteen year old all on his tod. Look at the size of that tree, and its location, and all of this at night in a storm. No
I presume this 16 year old is now seriously frightened in a police station and is spilling the beans; if his name gets out his life will be misery, whatever happens
Depends on the 16 year old. Could easily imagine one whose had some tree felling experience at home/working a part time job.
I genuinely can’t think of another British PM so detached from, and seemingly so incurious about, the country they govern. Sunak gives no impression of having any interest in anything beyond his spreadsheets and his family. I think people can sense this.
I like a good spreadsheet...
You'll be needing Lotus 123 then.
None of this Excel nonsense.
I learned the basics on aseasyas, a dos spreadsheet i think
Daily Mail becomes part of the cancel culture by terminating Dan Wootton's contract following the Laurence Fox/Ava Evans scandal.
He apologised. Never apologise. It doesn't work. It just makes things worse.
I think it depends.
A deep, heartfelt apology CAN work but only if people think it's genuine.
In the case of Dan Wootton nobody believes he is genuinely sorry given his appalling behaviour over the past several years, not to mention Lozza leaking his texts yesterday morning showing he'd found the whole episode funny.
I genuinely think Lozza is out of his mind on drunk and drugs so doesn't know what he's saying half the time but what's Woottons excuse? He's just an odd, shit-stirring, nasty piece of work, IMO.
Pretty sure the tree-fellers can be done under this section of the law on Criminal Damage
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets to this and future generations. These assets may include Scheduled Monuments; Conservation Areas; Grade 1 and 2 Listed Buildings; World Heritage Sites; Protected Marine Wreck Sites and Military Remains; and other sites of archaeological interest."
That isn't a section of legislation on criminal damage - it's just CPS guidance on dealing with a particular category of crime, and goes on to say that the preferred approach on what they call "heritage crime" is NOT via the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
In terms of damage to a World Heritage Site, in any event I strongly suspect that the UNESCO World Heritage List would refer to Hadrian's Wall itself rather than things around it, as the point is protection of remaining fragments of the frontier of the Roman Empire (and indeed the tree, whilst old, is nowhere near being Roman era).
They probably will find an offence with more severe penalties than unlicensed felling to bring charges on, but I'm not sure it'll be this (indeed, as I say, the very link you've posted explicitly discourages a criminal damage charge).
Like the Inner German Border and Berlin Wall, the frontier zone cionsisted of more than just the wall - a striplike zone. The WHS would - presumably - include the Roman military control zone, including the immediate military road behind the wall and also the Vallum (the confusingly named ditch some way to the south of the wall proper). As\ I u nderstand it, the tree is very definitely within this zone.
Edit: not to claim the tree *is* a Roman relic - but it may perhaps be seen as a relic of later landonwers' landscaping in response to the wall.
Now some convincing evidence on X that a local landowner is implicated. Kept complaining about people parking on his land to see the tree
Throw him in the dungeons of Bamburgh Castle?
Enough of this fucking vandalism. If the "newly aarrested duo" get convicted for the Crooked House arson, put them inside for ten years. Ditto here
Controversial statement time - was the tree protected by any preservation orders? If not, and the landowner took it down, has any offence occurred (other than grave offence to the nation)?
Quick glance at Google suggests the tree would have to be on "your" land for you to escape legal consequences, and also the tree would have to be non-listed
However this is a UNESCO site. Hadrian's Wall. Which makes it extra complex?
I am pretty sure an inventive police force can come up with *something*, and if they can't then throw the villain to the social media wolves, anyway. Force them to emigrate
It may be a UNESCO site, but surely that's the wall, not a weed (albeit a large and photogenic one)?
You need a felling licence for a tree over a specific diameter, protected or otherwise.
Anyway, there's no chance this will be treated as just a tree in a field.
Having read the leaflet I can see that's the case, but there seem to be exceptions (5m2) - how is that measured? Total wood? Does it mean the spread of the tree?
5 cubic meters is a trunk length of 15 meters and mid-diameter 60cm.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
No. You don't get to go early just because you don't like the current government any more than people did at the fag end of Brown's tenure, or Major's or anyone else. That's democracy.
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Britain does have relatively long maximum lengths to its Parliamentary terms. It would still be democratic to shorten this maximum length.
It's worth thinking about.
Assuming the Tories are turfed out at the next election, there will have been three years out of the last thirty where Britain was governed by a fag-end government that was out of ideas, that the electorate wanted rid of, lurching from crisis to crisis, and deferring important decisions because it had lost the ability to make them.
Shorten the maximum length of a Parliament to four years. You would get rid of the worst 10% of British governments at a stroke.
There is an argument for shortening the term and indeed for adopting a system like the States with fixed dates. However as we have seen, once a party achieved a majority it was happy to ditch the fixed term parliament act as soon as it could, in order to retain that advantage of choosing when to go. Not that it worked out well for May...
Against shortening is the inevitable short-termist view of governments. They want to make changes that bear fruit in short order - committing to long term projects is not going to benefit them directing (see HS2). I see it at the Uni - we have VC's for a max of two sets of 4 years. They come in, take stock and then make changes to 'show impact'. Its why we get constant churn in education and the NHS - new ministers may genuinely think they have good ideas, but they ALL want to have somthing to show for their time.
On balance I am happy with the current set up, but maybe a bit more of the PR might be a good thing?
The electoral arrangements we've got are fine, IMO, but the one change I'd make is the government has to call a general election within six months if they change Prime Ministers mid-parliament.
I genuinely can’t think of another British PM so detached from, and seemingly so incurious about, the country they govern. Sunak gives no impression of having any interest in anything beyond his spreadsheets and his family. I think people can sense this.
I like a good spreadsheet...
You'll be needing Lotus 123 then.
None of this Excel nonsense.
I learned the basics on aseasyas, a dos spreadsheet i think
Visicalc, Supercalc, Lotus 123 for me before succumbing to evils of Excel.
Daily Mail becomes part of the cancel culture by terminating Dan Wootton's contract following the Laurence Fox/Ava Evans scandal.
He apologised. Never apologise. It doesn't work. It just makes things worse.
I think it depends.
A deep, heartfelt apology CAN work but only if people think it's genuine.
In the case of Dan Wootton nobody believes he is genuinely sorry given his appalling behaviour over the past several years, not to mention Lozza leaking his texts yesterday morning showing he'd found the whole episode funny.
I genuinely think Lozza is out of his mind on drunk and drugs so doesn't know what he's saying half the time but what's Woottons excuse? He's just an odd, shit-stirring, nasty piece of work, IMO.
Bit weird that Fox has kept his GB job.
I think he's facing a disciplinary hearing tomorrow (and is expecting to be sacked?)
Regarding whichever idiot cut down the sycamore, has anyone checked under the tree yet?
You never know, karma and all that.
Hmm, they can also do a lot with forensic science if the polis recover a suspect saw.
Er, why would you leave the saw behind?
The idiots at the Hatton Garden Robbery left their drill behind. With a moderately rare and expensive concrete boring bit. With a serial number on the bit. Said bit purchased on a credit card belonging to one of the robbers.
I love this. Essentially very often criminals are not that bright. Or perhaps its just the ones that get caught aren't!
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
No. You don't get to go early just because you don't like the current government any more than people did at the fag end of Brown's tenure, or Major's or anyone else. That's democracy.
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Britain does have relatively long maximum lengths to its Parliamentary terms. It would still be democratic to shorten this maximum length.
It's worth thinking about.
Assuming the Tories are turfed out at the next election, there will have been three years out of the last thirty where Britain was governed by a fag-end government that was out of ideas, that the electorate wanted rid of, lurching from crisis to crisis, and deferring important decisions because it had lost the ability to make them.
Shorten the maximum length of a Parliament to four years. You would get rid of the worst 10% of British governments at a stroke.
There is an argument for shortening the term and indeed for adopting a system like the States with fixed dates. However as we have seen, once a party achieved a majority it was happy to ditch the fixed term parliament act as soon as it could, in order to retain that advantage of choosing when to go. Not that it worked out well for May...
Against shortening is the inevitable short-termist view of governments. They want to make changes that bear fruit in short order - committing to long term projects is not going to benefit them directing (see HS2). I see it at the Uni - we have VC's for a max of two sets of 4 years. They come in, take stock and then make changes to 'show impact'. Its why we get constant churn in education and the NHS - new ministers may genuinely think they have good ideas, but they ALL want to have somthing to show for their time.
On balance I am happy with the current set up, but maybe a bit more of the PR might be a good thing?
I think the electoral arrangements we've got are fine but the one change I'd make is the government has to call a general election within six months if they change Prime Ministers mid-parliament.
That's an interesting one. We don't have a presidential system - you vote for an MP in your constituency. So in theory there ought be no need to do this. And yet.
Many people act as if we are electing a PM. Right now people are talking about Starmer in this way, rather than what Labour will/might do when/if they win.
Its a familiar refrain from political opponents too.
Would it make it less likely that a PM would be deposed? I think possibly yes. Would that be a good thing? Not sure.
Apparently the tree was on land owned by the National Trust, so there is no way you can - legally - just cut it down. You don't own it, the nation does
In theory... but it's a bit late once it's cut down in the dead of night. It ain't being put back...
Well, yeah, we know that. Indeed this is one reason it is so heartbreaking. You can restore a building like the Crooked Pub, more or less. You can't restore the dead
And we can see justice served, severely, on those responsible. Deterrence is important
Again I refer back to the Crooked House case. Today, coincidentally, two people (with ages exactly like the two owners of the pub, but we don't know if it is actually them) have been arrested for "arson, with reckless disregard for life"
As far as I can see that carries a guaranteed custodial sentence of several years. That is a proper deterrent
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
No - most people that YOU seem to meet are. I have not had a political discussion with any one in the last few months. Talked a lot of other rubbish though.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
No - most people that YOU seem to meet are. I have not had a political discussion with any one in the last few months. Talked a lot of other rubbish though.
Actually that's not quite true - my parents were praising Sunak for meaning Dad can carry on driving a diesel car. They really hadn't grasped the issues...
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
No. You don't get to go early just because you don't like the current government any more than people did at the fag end of Brown's tenure, or Major's or anyone else. That's democracy.
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Britain does have relatively long maximum lengths to its Parliamentary terms. It would still be democratic to shorten this maximum length.
It's worth thinking about.
Assuming the Tories are turfed out at the next election, there will have been three years out of the last thirty where Britain was governed by a fag-end government that was out of ideas, that the electorate wanted rid of, lurching from crisis to crisis, and deferring important decisions because it had lost the ability to make them.
Shorten the maximum length of a Parliament to four years. You would get rid of the worst 10% of British governments at a stroke.
There is an argument for shortening the term and indeed for adopting a system like the States with fixed dates. However as we have seen, once a party achieved a majority it was happy to ditch the fixed term parliament act as soon as it could, in order to retain that advantage of choosing when to go. Not that it worked out well for May...
Against shortening is the inevitable short-termist view of governments. They want to make changes that bear fruit in short order - committing to long term projects is not going to benefit them directing (see HS2). I see it at the Uni - we have VC's for a max of two sets of 4 years. They come in, take stock and then make changes to 'show impact'. Its why we get constant churn in education and the NHS - new ministers may genuinely think they have good ideas, but they ALL want to have somthing to show for their time.
On balance I am happy with the current set up, but maybe a bit more of the PR might be a good thing?
Not many European democracies have longer Parliamentary terms than Britain, but it seems to be Britain that particularly has short-termist decision-making when it comes to infrastructure, etc.
Perhaps by having elections less often, winning them becomes more consequential, and so politicians are encouraged to focus more on short-termist decisions that will help win the election?
Most government's go for an election after four years. So the change only affects those that are clinging on because they've fallen apart.
Regarding whichever idiot cut down the sycamore, has anyone checked under the tree yet?
You never know, karma and all that.
Hmm, they can also do a lot with forensic science if the polis recover a suspect saw.
Er, why would you leave the saw behind?
The idiots at the Hatton Garden Robbery left their drill behind. With a moderately rare and expensive concrete boring bit. With a serial number on the bit. Said bit purchased on a credit card belonging to one of the robbers.
I love this. Essentially very often criminals are not that bright. Or perhaps its just the ones that get caught aren't!
The hilarious bit (ha) was the police didn’t have a clue.
It was the manager of the tool store who came in on the Tuesday and noticed they’d sold a heavy duty industrial tool only used on heavy construction sites. On a bank holiday weekend. A tool used in a major robbery on the weekend.
The serial numbers are logged, because the bits are worth 3 figures and get stolen.
So he rang the police and asked if the bit in the drill had a serial number of X…
Given the PM is so keen on transport policy today, I would like to suggest that the fitting and traditional way to end this Tory journey would be with a major investment in a cones hotline.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
You cannot restore ancient woodland by planting trees, no matter how many.
Edit: If you are building something like HS2, admit that it will cause damage and then get on with it. Greenwashing is pointless.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
I genuinely can’t think of another British PM so detached from, and seemingly so incurious about, the country they govern. Sunak gives no impression of having any interest in anything beyond his spreadsheets and his family. I think people can sense this.
I like a good spreadsheet...
You'll be needing Lotus 123 then.
None of this Excel nonsense.
I learned the basics on aseasyas, a dos spreadsheet i think
Resolver Systems spreadsheets are the way to go. Just ask @rcs1000…..
Regarding whichever idiot cut down the sycamore, has anyone checked under the tree yet?
You never know, karma and all that.
Hmm, they can also do a lot with forensic science if the polis recover a suspect saw.
Er, why would you leave the saw behind?
The idiots at the Hatton Garden Robbery left their drill behind. With a moderately rare and expensive concrete boring bit. With a serial number on the bit. Said bit purchased on a credit card belonging to one of the robbers.
When Ken Richardson, owner of East Riding Sacks, https://www.eastridingsacks.com hired a bunch of goons, to burn down Doncaster Rovers Stadium, in 1996, one of them left behind a rucksack with a mobile phone in it. They also got themselves filmed on CCTV filling up cans of petrol at a local petrol station. Then, one of them left a message on his answerphone, saying "I've done that job for you, Ken." Criminals can be very stupid.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Not sure what real world you occupy but my real world experience is people are just getting on with their lives.
Philosophical question for the ages: if a tree falls in Northumberland and everyone sees it for the first time on social media, was it actually there before?
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
You cannot restore ancient woodland by planting trees, no matter how many.
Edit: If you are building something like HS2, admit that it will cause damage and then get on with it. Greenwashing is pointless.
They do admit it will cause damage. Almost any civil engineering can cause damage - and unless you want to keep the country in aspic, you need civil engineering.
These schemes are designed to offset some of the damage - and some even create better environments for local residents.
But if you think these schemes are 'greenwashing' and should not happen, then fine. Civil engineering projects just got cheaper.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Not sure what real world you occupy but my real world experience is people are just getting on with their lives.
I think I can offer a synthesis to your dialectical discussion here: people are just getting on with their lives, and when prompted about their thoughts on the PM are probably moaning. I do a lot of moaning about all sorts of things while getting on with my life. In fact a good moan to a sympathetic audience is one of the things that makes life worth living.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
I think the Tories don't get why Johnson won the Red wall - they put it down to Brexit and culture war stuff, but I think more importantly is that Johnson was the first Tory PM who promised to turn on the money tap and spend money on needed infrastructure. The mini budget of Truss and the Treasury straight jacket on Sunak are not popular with these voters. If a Tory promised tax and spend (as much as many Tories here hate that) alongside pro business and culture war stuff, I think they'd do a lot better specifically amongst those voters. When Tories don't promise to spend money, they drift back to "naturally" voting Labour.
I don't agree.
Johnson made people who often don't think very deeply about politics (and I meant this utterly non-pejoratively, I think we overthink it most of the time here on pb) that he was 'on their side'.
It wasn't about money, it was about not appearing to be an identikit PPE clone.
I think that is part of it, sure. But outside of that, where he differed on policy most with Tories (and what essentially got a lot of backbenchers annoyed with him) was his willingness and desire to splash cash. The country has been tightening its belt my entire adult life, and we were told it was to make sure we could have a stable economy for the future. Well, to many people, it is the future - and the stable economy isn't here and we're still being told to tighten our belts. Talk to anyone on the doorstep and what they will moan about is the waiting time for their GP, or the schools, or the quality of the roads, etc. etc. Not culture war nonsense, but stuff that requires just hiring more people (which in turn requires paying more people competitively) to work in the state system.
Err, sorry, what?
Govt expenditure is now like 43% of GDP.
There isn't belt tightening. There is extreme, and growing, overreliance on the state.
I genuinely can’t think of another British PM so detached from, and seemingly so incurious about, the country they govern. Sunak gives no impression of having any interest in anything beyond his spreadsheets and his family. I think people can sense this.
I like a good spreadsheet...
You'll be needing Lotus 123 then.
None of this Excel nonsense.
I learned the basics on aseasyas, a dos spreadsheet i think
Visicalc, Supercalc, Lotus 123 for me before succumbing to evils of Excel.
Composing a cash-flow forecast in Visicalc on an Apple II was one of my early attempts at science fiction.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Not sure what real world you occupy but my real world experience is people are just getting on with their lives.
I think I can offer a synthesis to your dialectical discussion here: people are just getting on with their lives, and when prompted about their thoughts on the PM are probably moaning. I do a lot of moaning about all sorts of things while getting on with my life. In fact a good moan to a sympathetic audience is one of the things that makes life worth living.
People moan about the PM, when prompted, whoever it is. I just don’t get the level of visceral anger that Heathener claims there is. If people had a strong bias against then they’d rant unprompted.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
You cannot restore ancient woodland by planting trees, no matter how many.
Edit: If you are building something like HS2, admit that it will cause damage and then get on with it. Greenwashing is pointless.
They do admit it will cause damage. Almost any civil engineering can cause damage - and unless you want to keep the country in aspic, you need civil engineering.
These schemes are designed to offset some of the damage - and some even create better environments for local residents.
But if you think these schemes are 'greenwashing' and should not happen, then fine. Civil engineering projects just got cheaper.
It is the justification that is annoying. You cannot restore ancient woodland without 500 years to spare.
If there is sufficient benefit from the project that means you need to do it, then do it.
But don't then do the social media 5 years of tree planting blah blah blah as if you restored what was lost.
HS2 is a government scheme. Why link that to tree planting? Tree planting could be done at any time.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
It shows the power of well directed green NIMBYism. Grimbyism.
Like the EU before Brexit HS2 is a fantastic project on which to blame all sorts of things according to one's particular political persuasion.
Eco minded? Nevermind that it'll take traffic off the roads, it's destroyed ancient woodlands NIMBY? The noise and disruption will cause an intolerable loss of property prices Southerner? Woke railway nonsense, we should spend the money on tax cuts instead Northerner? Bloody railways always connecting everyone to London, we should build NPR/more roads instead
Given the PM is so keen on transport policy today, I would like to suggest that the fitting and traditional way to end this Tory journey would be with a major investment in a cones hotline.
In theory, most of their production could be shut down within a month if western allies got *really* serious about sanctions.
Nope
This is because the equipment is used around the world. So a company in India buys some cutters for a CNC machine (say). As part of the normal supply chain. Another Indian company rocks up and buys some cutters. Before you know it, they are on a plane.
The Russian copies of B29s were kept flying on American made tires. Which despite being completely specific to the B29….
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Not sure what real world you occupy but my real world experience is people are just getting on with their lives.
I think I can offer a synthesis to your dialectical discussion here: people are just getting on with their lives, and when prompted about their thoughts on the PM are probably moaning. I do a lot of moaning about all sorts of things while getting on with my life. In fact a good moan to a sympathetic audience is one of the things that makes life worth living.
People moan about the PM, when prompted, whoever it is. I just don’t get the level of visceral anger that Heathener claims there is. If people had a strong bias against then they’d rant unprompted.
I get the sense there is less visceral anger at Sunak than there was at Johnson. Partly because he seems so weak so those who don't like the government feel less powerless, partly because he doesn't have the same skill at deliberately riling and provoking his political opponents. Johnson for a time squatted like a toad over politics but was also a complete tosspot which was agonising.
Person A: "I'm saying our country has done an incredibly good job of integrating people from lots of different backgrounds."
Person B: "Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades"
Why are these in the same party? Why is one employing the other as home secretary?
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Not sure what real world you occupy but my real world experience is people are just getting on with their lives.
I think I can offer a synthesis to your dialectical discussion here: people are just getting on with their lives, and when prompted about their thoughts on the PM are probably moaning. I do a lot of moaning about all sorts of things while getting on with my life. In fact a good moan to a sympathetic audience is one of the things that makes life worth living.
People moan about the PM, when prompted, whoever it is. I just don’t get the level of visceral anger that Heathener claims there is. If people had a strong bias against then they’d rant unprompted.
I get the sense there is less visceral anger at Sunak than there was at Johnson. Partly because he seems so weak so those who don't like the government feel less powerless, partly because he doesn't have the same skill at deliberately riling and provoking his political opponents. Johnson for a time squatted like a toad over politics but was also a complete tosspot which was agonising.
I must admit I liked Sunak as a minister and thought he would be a significant improvement, but he is just so weak and spineless.
Pretty sure the tree-fellers can be done under this section of the law on Criminal Damage
"Heritage crime is defined as any crime or behaviour that harms the value of England's heritage assets to this and future generations. These assets may include Scheduled Monuments; Conservation Areas; Grade 1 and 2 Listed Buildings; World Heritage Sites; Protected Marine Wreck Sites and Military Remains; and other sites of archaeological interest."
Tbh it's for crimes like this some of the old middle eastern punishments come into their own. 50 lashings in public would be cathartic and not clog up the prisons.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Not sure what real world you occupy but my real world experience is people are just getting on with their lives.
I think I can offer a synthesis to your dialectical discussion here: people are just getting on with their lives, and when prompted about their thoughts on the PM are probably moaning. I do a lot of moaning about all sorts of things while getting on with my life. In fact a good moan to a sympathetic audience is one of the things that makes life worth living.
People moan about the PM, when prompted, whoever it is. I just don’t get the level of visceral anger that Heathener claims there is. If people had a strong bias against then they’d rant unprompted.
I get the sense there is less visceral anger at Sunak than there was at Johnson. Partly because he seems so weak so those who don't like the government feel less powerless, partly because he doesn't have the same skill at deliberately riling and provoking his political opponents. Johnson for a time squatted like a toad over politics but was also a complete tosspot which was agonising.
I must admit I liked Sunak as a minister and thought he would be a significant improvement, but he is just so weak and spineless.
He was better as a Chancellor but the Chancellor normally does set pieces which have been very carefully scripted and don’t have much in the way of detailed opposition. He seems to really struggle with the back and forth of broader politics. It comes across that he is patronising and mildly irritated that he is being challenged.
Sunak is terrible. Just awful. His new blokey speech is irritating but it's his contempt for people, utter failure to answer a simple question, hopeless out of touch cluelessness.
Why am I wasting my breath on the clown? Because unfortunately he's Britain's unelected Prime Minister.
Meanwhile Labour lead is 21% in today's YouGov.
Can't we just get this over and done with?
Most people in the real world are getting on with their lives.
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and him
Not sure what real world you occupy but my real world experience is people are just getting on with their lives.
I think I can offer a synthesis to your dialectical discussion here: people are just getting on with their lives, and when prompted about their thoughts on the PM are probably moaning. I do a lot of moaning about all sorts of things while getting on with my life. In fact a good moan to a sympathetic audience is one of the things that makes life worth living.
People moan about the PM, when prompted, whoever it is. I just don’t get the level of visceral anger that Heathener claims there is. If people had a strong bias against then they’d rant unprompted.
It’s a strange one, if I had a friend, or even a friend in real life, who kept collaring me about politics whilst shopping or sipping a thermos on the bus I would think they were a bit of a knob and likely just say whatever necessary to agree and walk away slowly.
It’s one thing having a five minute conversation at the pub occasionally about politics but the idea that everyone is just diving into political talk and slamming the government suggests either there is about to be a revolution, Heatherner needs new friends, Heatherner’s friends need to move or it’s all a load of bollocks.
Do you remember that minor incident last year when Sunak was fined fifty quid for failing to wear a seatbelt in a little video he made for his failed leadership campaign against Truss?
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
People have been telling fibs about HS2's impact on ancient woodland from the start.
The biggest increase in projected cost for the line came from changing the Chiltern tunnel from cheap(-ish) cut & cover through farmland to a slightly longer deep tunnel. This was ostensibly to protect Farthing Wood, 12 ha of "ancient woodland".
...except, er, Farthing Wood is actually ancient replanted woodland, with much of the replanting having been done in the 20th century. The bulk of the trees are non-native, with the most common being Corsican pine.
It's still better to not cut down mature trees if it's at all reasonable to avoid doing so, but these sort of antics are the reason we can't get anything done in this country.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
People have been telling fibs about HS2's impact on ancient woodland from the start.
The biggest increase in projected cost for the line came from changing the Chiltern tunnel from cheap(-ish) cut & cover through farmland to a slightly longer deep tunnel. This was ostensibly to protect Farthing Wood, 12 ha of "ancient woodland".
...except, er, Farthing Wood is actually ancient replanted woodland, with much of the replanting having been done in the 20th century. The bulk of the trees are non-native, with the most common being Corsican pine.
It's still better to not cut down mature trees if it's at all reasonable to avoid doing so, but these sort of antics are the reason we can't get anything done in this country.
That kind of stuff goes way back.
I recall a chap from Greenpeace actually going on TV to justify telling falsehoods about the Brent Spar - because it was for the Greater Good.
There was a very good episode of "It's a Fair Cop" (they're all good) which dealt with someone cutting down their neighbour's hedge because it was too high. One of the defences was that it wasn't illegal because the hedge would grow back.
My $0.02 is that it was intended to be cut down, or at least severely pruned by some organisation, council, NT, whatever, because of some spurious H&S reason.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
People have been telling fibs about HS2's impact on ancient woodland from the start.
The biggest increase in projected cost for the line came from changing the Chiltern tunnel from cheap(-ish) cut & cover through farmland to a slightly longer deep tunnel. This was ostensibly to protect Farthing Wood, 12 ha of "ancient woodland".
...except, er, Farthing Wood is actually ancient replanted woodland, with much of the replanting having been done in the 20th century. The bulk of the trees are non-native, with the most common being Corsican pine.
It's still better to not cut down mature trees if it's at all reasonable to avoid doing so, but these sort of antics are the reason we can't get anything done in this country.
Most "ancient woodland" in the UK has not been there since Treebeard's time. It's of varying age.
Nor is it true that you can't replace such ancient woodland - it will just take a long long time.
They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom to commit box junction infringements without being subject to a fixed penalty notice.
Sunak is not a natural at selling policy, and I think if he keeps doing motorist related stuff it's going to seem blatantly political to most observers. An absurd overreaction to Uxbridge.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
People have been telling fibs about HS2's impact on ancient woodland from the start.
The biggest increase in projected cost for the line came from changing the Chiltern tunnel from cheap(-ish) cut & cover through farmland to a slightly longer deep tunnel. This was ostensibly to protect Farthing Wood, 12 ha of "ancient woodland".
...except, er, Farthing Wood is actually ancient replanted woodland, with much of the replanting having been done in the 20th century. The bulk of the trees are non-native, with the most common being Corsican pine.
It's still better to not cut down mature trees if it's at all reasonable to avoid doing so, but these sort of antics are the reason we can't get anything done in this country.
Most "ancient woodland" in the UK has not been there since Treebeard's time. It's of varying age.
Nor is it true that you can't replace such ancient woodland - it will just take a long long time.
Erm, not quite right on ther last point: it also needs the right species mix, including crucially the interdependent species (insects, birds, root mycorrhizal symbiotic fungi, etc. etc.) Where are they going to be between times?
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
People have been telling fibs about HS2's impact on ancient woodland from the start.
The biggest increase in projected cost for the line came from changing the Chiltern tunnel from cheap(-ish) cut & cover through farmland to a slightly longer deep tunnel. This was ostensibly to protect Farthing Wood, 12 ha of "ancient woodland".
...except, er, Farthing Wood is actually ancient replanted woodland, with much of the replanting having been done in the 20th century. The bulk of the trees are non-native, with the most common being Corsican pine.
It's still better to not cut down mature trees if it's at all reasonable to avoid doing so, but these sort of antics are the reason we can't get anything done in this country.
Most "ancient woodland" in the UK has not been there since Treebeard's time. It's of varying age.
Nor is it true that you can't replace such ancient woodland - it will just take a long long time.
There's also a myth that ancient woodland means ancient trees. It doesn't.
It is actually the ground flora that makes a woodland interesting - not the trees. So if somewhere has been in woodland cover for 500 years but the trees were replanted many times (or coppiced) that doesn't affect its status at all.
Obviously planting Corsican Pine is a no-no, because the needles will change the nature of the soil.
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Destroyed ancient woodland. Planted saplings.
The amount of hysteria and falsehoods over HS2 and 'ancient' woodland is quite sad.
People have been telling fibs about HS2's impact on ancient woodland from the start.
The biggest increase in projected cost for the line came from changing the Chiltern tunnel from cheap(-ish) cut & cover through farmland to a slightly longer deep tunnel. This was ostensibly to protect Farthing Wood, 12 ha of "ancient woodland".
...except, er, Farthing Wood is actually ancient replanted woodland, with much of the replanting having been done in the 20th century. The bulk of the trees are non-native, with the most common being Corsican pine.
It's still better to not cut down mature trees if it's at all reasonable to avoid doing so, but these sort of antics are the reason we can't get anything done in this country.
Most "ancient woodland" in the UK has not been there since Treebeard's time. It's of varying age.
Nor is it true that you can't replace such ancient woodland - it will just take a long long time.
There’s a wood near here that was farm land during WWII!
Comments
We have our problems, but too often we navel gaze and convince ourselves that the UK is a shit hole, when its not.
I'm as keen as the next chap for Labour to have a go, but I am also a realist - don't expect much to change, other than the honeymoon in the media for a while.
It's worth thinking about.
Assuming the Tories are turfed out at the next election, there will have been three years out of the last thirty where Britain was governed by a fag-end government that was out of ideas, that the electorate wanted rid of, lurching from crisis to crisis, and deferring important decisions because it had lost the ability to make them.
Shorten the maximum length of a Parliament to four years. You would get rid of the worst 10% of British governments at a stroke.
I think its George Cross for gallantry and elevation to the peerage tout suite...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826786/TimberVolumeCalculator.pdf
This was obviously a large tree but 5m3 is quite a lot of wood, although I thought you were only allowed to make this up from thinning out smaller diameter trees and not fully grown ones.
Anyway, as I say, that's not going to be how this is treated anyway. There's no chance it wasn't protected.
All these rules assumes that the applicant is the landowner, too.
Trees are a big part of this.
And that figure rose to 40% among self-identified Democrats, while only 30% disagreed or strongly disagreed."
source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a-third-of-americans-believe-the-economy-is-a-zero-sum-game/ar-AA1hlhzG?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7733766a03b64cc6eb08caed558f713d&ei=49
Could something similar be true in the UK? (Though perhaps more often with class or region, than ethnic group.) That would make it very difficult for your politicians to discuss many issues.
Like the baseload nuclear power of polling demographics. Once a Lib Dem always a Lib Dem.
A deep, heartfelt apology CAN work but only if people think it's genuine.
In the case of Dan Wootton nobody believes he is genuinely sorry given his appalling behaviour over the past several years, not to mention Lozza leaking his texts yesterday morning showing he'd found the whole episode funny.
I genuinely think Lozza is out of his mind on drunk and drugs so doesn't know what he's saying half the time but what's Woottons excuse? He's just an odd, shit-stirring, nasty piece of work, IMO.
In terms of damage to a World Heritage Site, in any event I strongly suspect that the UNESCO World Heritage List would refer to Hadrian's Wall itself rather than things around it, as the point is protection of remaining fragments of the frontier of the Roman Empire (and indeed the tree, whilst old, is nowhere near being Roman era).
They probably will find an offence with more severe penalties than unlicensed felling to bring charges on, but I'm not sure it'll be this (indeed, as I say, the very link you've posted explicitly discourages a criminal damage charge).
Against shortening is the inevitable short-termist view of governments. They want to make changes that bear fruit in short order - committing to long term projects is not going to benefit them directing (see HS2). I see it at the Uni - we have VC's for a max of two sets of 4 years. They come in, take stock and then make changes to 'show impact'. Its why we get constant churn in education and the NHS - new ministers may genuinely think they have good ideas, but they ALL want to have somthing to show for their time.
On balance I am happy with the current set up, but maybe a bit more of the PR might be a good thing?
I agree they will find some law to apply, and I am guessing there will be more than one villain. I do not believe this is the act of a solitary 16 year old having a larf on the Tok
Edit: not to claim the tree *is* a Roman relic - but it may perhaps be seen as a relic of later landonwers' landscaping in response to the wall.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826786/TimberVolumeCalculator.pdf
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov commented on inflation in Russia:
"If you don't buy, prices are fine."
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1707403165883093281?s=20
Many people act as if we are electing a PM. Right now people are talking about Starmer in this way, rather than what Labour will/might do when/if they win.
Its a familiar refrain from political opponents too.
Would it make it less likely that a PM would be deposed? I think possibly yes. Would that be a good thing? Not sure.
And we can see justice served, severely, on those responsible. Deterrence is important
Again I refer back to the Crooked House case. Today, coincidentally, two people (with ages exactly like the two owners of the pub, but we don't know if it is actually them) have been arrested for "arson, with reckless disregard for life"
As far as I can see that carries a guaranteed custodial sentence of several years. That is a proper deterrent
Most people in the real world are moaning about it, and himNo - most people that YOU seem to meet are. I have not had a political discussion with any one in the last few months. Talked a lot of other rubbish though.
Actually that's not quite true - my parents were praising Sunak for meaning Dad can carry on driving a diesel car. They really hadn't grasped the issues...
"Since 2017, HS2’s ecologists have planted around 845,000 trees and created 119 new habitat sites, covering an area equal to 650 football pitches.
160 new ponds are now homes for wildlife, 2,000 bat boxes installed, and thousands of newts successfully translocated."
https://mediacentre.hs2.org.uk/news/hs2-celebrates-five-years-of-tree-planting-and-habitat-creation-in-national-tree-week
Not all these trees will survive (half a million newly-planted trees died during the A14 upgrade), but it is, apparently, cheaper to replace saplings that have died rather than to give them care - and given the numbers, that may make sense.
Perhaps by having elections less often, winning them becomes more consequential, and so politicians are encouraged to focus more on short-termist decisions that will help win the election?
Most government's go for an election after four years. So the change only affects those that are clinging on because they've fallen apart.
It was the manager of the tool store who came in on the Tuesday and noticed they’d sold a heavy duty industrial tool only used on heavy construction sites. On a bank holiday weekend. A tool used in a major robbery on the weekend.
The serial numbers are logged, because the bits are worth 3 figures and get stolen.
So he rang the police and asked if the bit in the drill had a serial number of X…
Edit: If you are building something like HS2, admit that it will cause damage and then get on with it. Greenwashing is pointless.
These schemes are designed to offset some of the damage - and some even create better environments for local residents.
But if you think these schemes are 'greenwashing' and should not happen, then fine. Civil engineering projects just got cheaper.
https://hs2.green/108-ancient-woodlands-destroyed/
Govt expenditure is now like 43% of GDP.
There isn't belt tightening. There is extreme, and growing, overreliance on the state.
Thread here on the use of western machine tools in Russian arms production.
https://twitter.com/rhodusinc/status/1707073219071557669
In theory, most of their production could be shut down within a month if western allies got *really* serious about sanctions.
If there is sufficient benefit from the project that means you need to do it, then do it.
But don't then do the social media 5 years of tree planting blah blah blah as if you restored what was lost.
HS2 is a government scheme. Why link that to tree planting? Tree planting could be done at any time.
"A Group of Scientists Suggest that Plants Feel Pain"
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/24473/20191218/a-group-of-scientists-suggest-that-plants-feel-pain.htm
That sycamore probably screamed across the Northumbrian wilds, as it fell to its death. We just couldn't hear it
Think about that
It shows the power of well directed green NIMBYism. Grimbyism.
Like the EU before Brexit HS2 is a fantastic project on which to blame all sorts of things according to one's particular political persuasion.
Eco minded? Nevermind that it'll take traffic off the roads, it's destroyed ancient woodlands
NIMBY? The noise and disruption will cause an intolerable loss of property prices
Southerner? Woke railway nonsense, we should spend the money on tax cuts instead
Northerner? Bloody railways always connecting everyone to London, we should build NPR/more roads instead
This is because the equipment is used around the world. So a company in India buys some cutters for a CNC machine (say). As part of the normal supply chain. Another Indian company rocks up and buys some cutters. Before you know it, they are on a plane.
The Russian copies of B29s were kept flying on American made tires. Which despite being completely specific to the B29….
eg https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/ai-tree-t14630
There was a metal version at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park for a while.
Person B: "Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration, and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades"
Why are these in the same party? Why is one employing the other as home secretary?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/28/rishi-sunak-expected-to-limit-powers-of-councils-in-england-to-curb-car-use-20mph-speed-limit-traffic-camera-fines
The default speed limit in built up areas in Wales is now 20mph
Asked in July last year, 48% of Britons supported a shift to 20mph in urban areas, compared to 39% who were opposed
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1703718003710583029/photo/1
50 lashings in public would be cathartic and not clog up the prisons.
It’s one thing having a five minute conversation at the pub occasionally about politics but the idea that everyone is just diving into political talk and slamming the government suggests either there is about to be a revolution, Heatherner needs new friends, Heatherner’s friends need to move or it’s all a load of bollocks.
No? Well Rishi does.
The biggest increase in projected cost for the line came from changing the Chiltern tunnel from cheap(-ish) cut & cover through farmland to a slightly longer deep tunnel. This was ostensibly to protect Farthing Wood, 12 ha of "ancient woodland".
...except, er, Farthing Wood is actually ancient replanted woodland, with much of the replanting having been done in the 20th century. The bulk of the trees are non-native, with the most common being Corsican pine.
It's still better to not cut down mature trees if it's at all reasonable to avoid doing so, but these sort of antics are the reason we can't get anything done in this country.
I recall a chap from Greenpeace actually going on TV to justify telling falsehoods about the Brent Spar - because it was for the Greater Good.
My $0.02 is that it was intended to be cut down, or at least severely pruned by some organisation, council, NT, whatever, because of some spurious H&S reason.
Nor is it true that you can't replace such ancient woodland - it will just take a long long time.
It is actually the ground flora that makes a woodland interesting - not the trees. So if somewhere has been in woodland cover for 500 years but the trees were replanted many times (or coppiced) that doesn't affect its status at all.
Obviously planting Corsican Pine is a no-no, because the needles will change the nature of the soil.