"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
Because I disagree with you and am entitled to a different view of the issue
If it upsets you then sorry but that is the way it is
Humans have been eating meat since the dawn of time.
Denialists should be put in the women have penises category.
Ever had a look atg the embryonic development of the hominine genitalia? It might surprise you.
As for 'eating meat since the dawn of time', that's a bit like saying chimps eat meat - but also a great deal of plant material. An omnivore does not an obligate carnivore make.
Indeed.
Every balanced meal has some meat, some veg etc
Its not purely one of the other.
Every meal? That's the problem right there.
If you put meat in every meal (or even every day), it adds up to more meat than humans have mostly eaten through history.
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
If it came as a surprise to the Israelis - and it clearly did - it seems unlikely they had been doing anything (more than the usual) to provoke Hamas.
There’s just been a news item about this particular issue. Mrs C asked me “which side are we on?” I had to say that I didn’t know; both as bad as each other, perhaps. At the beginning, back in the 40’s and 50’s, one could, reasonably, have sympathy for the Israelis, but now???
I’m sorry but WTAF?
These are innocent civilians who have been attacked by terrorists.
Are you really unable to separate that from the actions of the Israeli government?
You think the Israeli's doing the same thing in Gaza is any different. Two cheeks of the same arse at the top , civilians have little say in it, though they must vote for these clowns.
The difference is intention.
Hamas is attacking civilians because (a) they want to cause terror; and (b) they want to exterminate all Hews
Israel attacks military targets. They are much more tolerant of civilian casualties than we would be. The excessive loss of life and damage is rightly condemned.
But they are not equivalent to each other
Said a diehard Israeli supporter. You cannot excuse either side killing civilians or you are part of the problem. They are both in the wrong and neihter side has ever tried to resolve the issue except by killing.
It’s why we distinguish between murder and manslaughter. They are both wrong, but one is more wrong than the other.
I understand the Israeli mindset. But I support Benny Gantz rather than Likud. Negotiation will be the only way to resolve this, but neither side is in the frame of mind where that can be successful. There was a chance in Oslo but Arafat f*cked up big time. And so we need to wait for one side to “win” or for both sides to be exhausted.
I fear that @Leon may be correct on this occasion.
The trouble is that every time it looks like peace is on the cards, the extremists on one side or other launch a new outrage so everyone walks away. The hardliners on both sides say they want peace but only on their terms.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
Also venison is REALLY delicious
Here’s a fabulous recipe. I cook it regularly. It’s as good as any beef dish
I don't know about you but I can't cook beef. It never turns out well. I like it in a restaurant but I never make it myself. Lamb seems easier. Moroccan stew, slow cooked, delightful.
Brisket cooked for 3-4 hours is simple and just falls apart.
Carbonnade de boeuf with stewing steak, beer and mustard never fails. Though nowadays we seldom eat beef.
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Cui bono?
Putin - diverts US attention (such as it is) from Ukraine. Iran - possibly slows/stymies rapprochement between Saudi/Israel/US
Which is why arguing the Russians have no dog in this fight is mypoic.
Who loses? Some Israelis, Gazans, big time.
I’m sorry. But it’s bollocks
Russia has nothing to gain from directly menacing a big military player like Israel, and a lot to lose
Relations between Jerusalem and Moscow are actually quite good. This is helpful for Putin
Assisting the lunatics of hamas to slaughter Jews gets him zero benefit. Its an insane theory
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Yes , that and chicken was what we had mainly when I was a boy , some lamb. Always 1 day with soup & pudding. Don't need to be rich to eat well.
For some reason chicken was very difficult to get hold of when I was young. It was a treat which we had at Christmas when one of my mother’s brothers, a farmer, sent a parcel including a chicken. That was during WWII, of course.
Though there are concerns as to how genuine a lot of these offsets are genuine.
Sure. But one can only do what is offered as a solution
I hope you are considering the extermination of your dog as he is a pointless imposition on the environment, eating meat and pooing toxins. Or, you prefer to think of ways to offset his carbon footprint because you like him
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
To be fair to the remaining Conservative loyalists, the alternative is admitting that they've messed up pretty badly.
(The depressing thing, apart from the undemocratic salting of the land, is what this decision says about what the government thinks will go down well with the voters. Forget doing anything where the benefits will go to our children and grandchildren. We want cheaper bus fares now.)
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
Right, but then the focus should be on improving standards and changing working practices in livestock agriculture, rather than creating a needless conflict where farmers think you are trying to end their livelihood.
In Ireland, for example, the debate is all about herd numbers, and whether the government will force a cull on cattle farmers to reduce emissions. It's completely wrong-headed and is unnecessarily threatening.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Very different, yes, and then offsetting measures can make the difference to net zero from there.
I'll be sticking with meat 7 days a week like I currently do. Might sometimes be 6 if a meal I fancy coincidentally is meat-free, but at 3 meals a day the odds of all 3 being vegetarian is pretty slim pickings.
Do you not eat fish or game? You should. NOM NOM
I used to like you Leon but people who say or write “nom nom” deserve to be force fed their own intestines and genitals. You are dead to me.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Importing NZ lamb is lower carbon than eating UK lamb - the transport carbon is negligible and the carbon cost of NZ lamb production is less.
There're some fairly awful piccies doing the rounds. A morning to avoid Twitter.
Reports of armed Palestinian ganga roaming Israeli towns near Gaza, gunning down everyone they see.
Unfortunately the way they have been treating people it is not surprising. If you keep kicking your dog at some point it will bite back.
True . The Palestinians have been kept in disgusting conditions , effectively a prison camp. Their land being stolen daily to make way for illegal settlements. It’s awful to see this violence but no surprise .
Well, I find it a surprise. Indiscriminate slaughter of civilians? Yes, shocking and surprising.
Killing every Israeli is Hamas' stated goal. That they attempt to do so given an opportunity is not a surprise.
That they got the opportunity *is* a surprise, given the efficiency of Israel's intelligence services and armed forces. It should be a career ending surprise for Netanyahu and his government. Which is why we should again not be surprised to see something similar done in Gaza when (and unless Hamas has been armed to a very high standard in secret, I am pretty sure it will be when) the IDF move in.
As I have grown older and wiser, my perspective has changed on Israel & Palestine. Whilst both sides are bad at times, my sympathies sit far more with the Israelis now than the Palestinians.
Here is the problem. Hardline settler lunatics seem to want to take by force the land they believe was given to them by God. Hardline Palestinian lunatics want to commit genocide and sweep the Jews into the sea. And it is really not helped by the neighbouring countries who haven't simply absorbed people - these "refugee camps" are idiotic as they're generations in.
Israel is a functioning democracy and can't put up with madness like Netanyahu these attacks. I don't know how far this will go, but its hard to see how it can resist going into Gaza on a mission to eradicate the threat. And that will be bloody and brutal.
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Cui bono?
Putin - diverts US attention (such as it is) from Ukraine. Iran - possibly slows/stymies rapprochement between Saudi/Israel/US
Which is why arguing the Russians have no dog in this fight is mypoic.
Who loses? Some Israelis, Gazans, big time.
I’m sorry. But it’s bollocks
Russia has nothing to gain from directly menacing a big military player like Israel, and a lot to lose
Relations between Jerusalem and Moscow are actually quite good. This is helpful for Putin
Assisting the lunatics of hamas to slaughter Jews gets him zero benefit. Its an insane theory
You don't think Putin benefits from more chaos in the world and the West's attention diverted from Ukraine?
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Yes , that and chicken was what we had mainly when I was a boy , some lamb. Always 1 day with soup & pudding. Don't need to be rich to eat well.
For some reason chicken was very difficult to get hold of when I was young. It was a treat which we had at Christmas when one of my mother’s brothers, a farmer, sent a parcel including a chicken. That was during WWII, of course.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Yes , that and chicken was what we had mainly when I was a boy , some lamb. Always 1 day with soup & pudding. Don't need to be rich to eat well.
For some reason chicken was very difficult to get hold of when I was young. It was a treat which we had at Christmas when one of my mother’s brothers, a farmer, sent a parcel including a chicken. That was during WWII, of course.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
Also venison is REALLY delicious
Here’s a fabulous recipe. I cook it regularly. It’s as good as any beef dish
I don't know about you but I can't cook beef. It never turns out well. I like it in a restaurant but I never make it myself. Lamb seems easier. Moroccan stew, slow cooked, delightful.
Brisket cooked for 3-4 hours is simple and just falls apart.
Carbonnade de boeuf with stewing steak, beer and mustard never fails. Though nowadays we seldom eat beef.
Superb Geoff, slow cooked it is brilliant, better than a steak.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Importing NZ lamb is lower carbon than eating UK lamb - the transport carbon is negligible and the carbon cost of NZ lamb production is less.
No idea if this is true of Aussie beef.
Not as tasty as Scottish Lamb though and always frozen and as old as mutton by time it gets here.
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Cui bono?
Putin - diverts US attention (such as it is) from Ukraine. Iran - possibly slows/stymies rapprochement between Saudi/Israel/US
Which is why arguing the Russians have no dog in this fight is mypoic.
Who loses? Some Israelis, Gazans, big time.
I’m sorry. But it’s bollocks
Russia has nothing to gain from directly menacing a big military player like Israel, and a lot to lose
Relations between Jerusalem and Moscow are actually quite good. This is helpful for Putin
Assisting the lunatics of hamas to slaughter Jews gets him zero benefit. Its an insane theory
You don't think Putin benefits from more chaos in the world and the West's attention diverted from Ukraine?
There are myriad ways Putin can roil the world without dipping his hands in Jewish blood and making a sworn enemy of Israel
The Iranians however - yes. They make the drones for a start. They are allies of hamas. They loathe Israel. And despite what you say I don’t believe it takes a military genius to work out how to drop a bomb from a drone. Indeed it’s probably quite easy
It'll be nothing compared to what the Gaza strip gets in return.
Israel’s long term policy with Gaza has pretty obviously always been to make it uninhabitable. Issues with the water supply were thought to make that likely by 2020 but obviously that date wasn’t accurate.
I am just wondering if this latest attack might lead Israel to take a more direct approach a la Azerbaijan and Artsekh. In which case, if I were the Egyptian government I would be really worried right now.
Was this attack by Hamas provoked by anything? Or are they just taking advantage of the Jewish holidays?
50th Anniversary of the start of the 1973 war.
Which was the closest that Israel ever came to defeat.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
As a population, did we used to eat red meat more than that 50 years ago? Growing up we certainly didn't have meat every day, we couldn't afford it. Hence Sunday Roast was the "big meal" of the week with roast beef.
Don't forget the cheaper cuts - stews and mince.
Yes , that and chicken was what we had mainly when I was a boy , some lamb. Always 1 day with soup & pudding. Don't need to be rich to eat well.
For some reason chicken was very difficult to get hold of when I was young. It was a treat which we had at Christmas when one of my mother’s brothers, a farmer, sent a parcel including a chicken. That was during WWII, of course.
"9.38 The TMS team has successfully made the trip from Ahmedabad to Delhi. The box in Delhi is, rather interestingly, behind a screen at the back of the press box.
9.30 The only press box in the world with a fountain?"
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Importing NZ lamb is lower carbon than eating UK lamb - the transport carbon is negligible and the carbon cost of NZ lamb production is less.
No idea if this is true of Aussie beef.
Not as tasty as Scottish Lamb though and always frozen and as old as mutton by time it gets here.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
No, it really is, in several ways
Also it’s bad for you to eat too much red meat. 1-2 times a week is fine. Eat more fish and game
No, it isn't. More Met bullshit getting to you.
We have a problem because we burn billions and billions of fossil fuels each year (coal, oil and gas) not because a few cows wonder around farting, as they have for centuries.
This is a strand of Western culture of the Christian self-flaggelating type which embraces pointless puritanism to deal with guilt and gift virtue in the face of something seemingly overwhelming that one feels powerless to deal with.
It might not be the biggest sector of greenhouse emissions, but for some people it's one of the easiest things you can do. Eating meat two days a week instead of five is achievable, healthier, and beneficial. And you don't need to make it into a culture war. It's not about guilt or suffering, it's just something that you could do if you care about trying to reduce environmental pollution. Up to you.
Also venison is REALLY delicious
Here’s a fabulous recipe. I cook it regularly. It’s as good as any beef dish
I don't know about you but I can't cook beef. It never turns out well. I like it in a restaurant but I never make it myself. Lamb seems easier. Moroccan stew, slow cooked, delightful.
Brisket cooked for 3-4 hours is simple and just falls apart.
Carbonnade de boeuf with stewing steak, beer and mustard never fails. Though nowadays we seldom eat beef.
Superb Geoff, slow cooked it is brilliant, better than a steak.
Recipe from Mrs Beeton's, olive oil substituted for lard
Lord. Some of the vids from Israel showed on my timeline. Brutal massacres of Israeli civilians as far as I can see. Rooms full of bodies - some still moving
Cui bono?
Putin - diverts US attention (such as it is) from Ukraine. Iran - possibly slows/stymies rapprochement between Saudi/Israel/US
Which is why arguing the Russians have no dog in this fight is mypoic.
Who loses? Some Israelis, Gazans, big time.
I’m sorry. But it’s bollocks
Russia has nothing to gain from directly menacing a big military player like Israel, and a lot to lose
Relations between Jerusalem and Moscow are actually quite good. This is helpful for Putin
Assisting the lunatics of hamas to slaughter Jews gets him zero benefit. Its an insane theory
You don't think Putin benefits from more chaos in the world and the West's attention diverted from Ukraine?
There are myriad ways Putin can roil the world without dipping his hands in Jewish blood and making a sworn enemy of Israel
The Iranians however - yes. They make the drones for a start. They are allies of hamas. They loathe Israel. And despite what you say I don’t believe it takes a military genius to work out how to drop a bomb from a drone. Indeed it’s probably quite easy
It’s Iran
I'm sure Iran's behind it, but I doubt Putin's upset.
On another topic I got my flu jag last night, turned down a covid booster jag. Too much noise about the covid vaccine to be healthy.
Morning Malc
My wife and I had our flu jabs last week and out 7th covid vaccine which we were told has been adjusted for the new variant
Mind you we have both had covid and it was horrible
Yes we had it before it was called covid and was desperate for sure but I am not keen on any more vaccine. Last time my wife had atrial fibrillation the next day and two consultants visited have been less than keen on it as well.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Exactly so. It's meat shaming and pompous sanctimony.
Nothing else.
It's not, because the current situation is that m,uch beef is produced intensively,and increasingly so. We're not at the grass feeding and electric tractor stage by a very long shot.
It is, because it didn't ask if you buy grass fed beef. Plenty of people do, especially in this country.
But that wouldn't have fed an anti-meat agenda.
It didn't ask if youy bought intensively reared meat, either. Just averages the current production figures. And bear in mind that a lot of supermarket p[ackaging is decidedly deceptivce.
Hang on - weren't you all in favour the other day of importing beef from the other side of the world?
Importing NZ lamb is lower carbon than eating UK lamb - the transport carbon is negligible and the carbon cost of NZ lamb production is less.
No idea if this is true of Aussie beef.
Not as tasty as Scottish Lamb though and always frozen and as old as mutton by time it gets here.
On another topic I got my flu jag last night, turned down a covid booster jag. Too much noise about the covid vaccine to be healthy.
Morning Malc
My wife and I had our flu jabs last week and out 7th covid vaccine which we were told has been adjusted for the new variant
Mind you we have both had covid and it was horrible
Yes we had it before it was called covid and was desperate for sure but I am not keen on any more vaccine. Last time my wife had atrial fibrillation the next day and two consultants visited have been less than keen on it as well.
Why does each day seem to bring more and more depressing news
Almost reluctant to put on the news these days and just look to the family and our garden
I think that, in general, it's important to be an informed citizen, and to know about what is going on. But you do sometimes need to take a break from the awfulness of it all.
Today I am doing a stew with chicken legs, 70p each at Waitrose. A bit harder to get right, and a bit less good than a beef stew, but worth a go once in a while.
Even a chicken stew is better with a few pieces of unsmoked streaky bacon in it, though. So red meat not entirely avoided.
Why does each day seem to bring more and more depressing news
Almost reluctant to put on the news these days and just look to the family and our garden
I think that, in general, it's important to be an informed citizen, and to know about what is going on. But you do sometimes need to take a break from the awfulness of it all.
24hr news then social media has made it seem the world is a lot worse than ever before, when in reality it isn't, as negative news is what gets clicks.
Steven Pinker's book, Enlightenment Now, was very good on this.
Why does each day seem to bring more and more depressing news
Almost reluctant to put on the news these days and just look to the family and our garden
I think that, in general, it's important to be an informed citizen, and to know about what is going on. But you do sometimes need to take a break from the awfulness of it all.
Indeed but at times it becomes overwhelming
Today looks as if it one of those days with repercussions that are too depressing to consider
On another topic I got my flu jag last night, turned down a covid booster jag. Too much noise about the covid vaccine to be healthy.
Morning Malc
My wife and I had our flu jabs last week and out 7th covid vaccine which we were told has been adjusted for the new variant
Mind you we have both had covid and it was horrible
Yes we had it before it was called covid and was desperate for sure but I am not keen on any more vaccine. Last time my wife had atrial fibrillation the next day and two consultants visited have been less than keen on it as well.
Horrific scenes in Israel. Families slaughtered at bus stops
The fear is that this Israeli government, the most far right ever, will now enact a Permanent Solution to the Gaza Problem: ejecting them all into Sinai. Perhaps, in a macabre way, that would be better than the endless agony of the last decades
Aaaand we're talking up ethnic cleansing before 9am
What ARE you talking about??
I don’t want this to happen. I don’t want Israelis or Palestinians to die - any of them. The whole thing is a Satanic mess and both sides are at fault - increasingly Israel but the Islamists of Hamas are hardly saints
I am speculating as to possible outcomes and what a very hardline Israeli government might do that no previous Israeli government has dared to do - actually drive the Palestinians out of Gaza. Far right Israeli politicians have talked of this in the past, plenty of times, well now they are in the government - so maybe they will do it
If it happens it would be a crime for the ages - of course - but in the end if the Gazans were given a proper amount of land to settle in Sinai - and their freedom - it might be better than the living prison they inhabit now, which is constantly at war (as we see)
There is no good easy clearly moral solution; quit your pearl clutching
There is, of course, another aspect to any ethnic cleaning of Gaza. Without Gaza, no Palestinian state could possibly be viable, as it is the largest city and the only port (including airport, not that it's operating right now).
It would also change the demographic ratio of the whole area firmly in favour of the Israelis by removing over half the Palestinians.
At that stage the West Bank would almost certainly have to accept its de facto annexation into Israel. The 'facts on the ground' strategy would have borne fruit.
Would Netanyahu do it? Certainly he would, given a pretext.
He has just been given a pretext.
And having emasculated the Israeli courts and split the Knesset, it's hard to see who would stop him.
As the LibDem MP says, it's hard to see how this ends well.
Yes I can absolutely see Netanyahu exploiting this the way you describe. His government is full of people who have PROPOSED versions of this
I once heard Netanyahu compared to Hitler, because of this very issue.
By an Israeli.
Who was not only a senior official of Yad Vashem, but had been forced to leave Iran as a boy because of its own ethnic cleansing of Jews.
Nasty human being (Netanyahu, not Yiftach).
But again, anyone making a hero out of Ismail Haniyeh and his acolytes is overlooking the fact they're just as bad, as any reasoning human being would have worked out but Corbyn apparently couldn't.
This is as OldKingCole says not a conflict where outsiders should look to take sides on moral grounds. Israel is a democracy (rather a flawed one) but it is neither an innocent victim nor an unrelieved goody.
In this particular instance, Israel is surely the victim. Hamas has launched what looks like an armed invasion, with thousands of rockets and apparently indiscriminate slaughter. The provocation was not Israel but more likely Iran's desperation to undermine the recent deals Israel has made with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Leon might be right that Israel's government will exploit this, but that is not to say they caused or invited it.
I agree this is on Hamas. All the way. They are acting as they have always sought to, on a vast scale apparently, and demonstrating why the Israelis hate and fear them.
I do wonder however whether you're altogether right about the Israeli government reaction (leaving aside, for the moment, the somewhat separate issue about the extent to which their policies over the years have caused it). Sure, this isn't what they *invited* but if Netanyahu can exploit it to capture Gaza and expel the Palestinian population there I suspect privately he will be very pleased. And whatever he says in public, I doubt if he really cares about the lives of Israeli civilians any more than he does Palestinian ones.
A big question is: does Hamas have a different, better plan this time? Something that doesn’t end the normal way - with Israel beating the shit out of gaza for six months and 5000 dead Palestinians?
Coz that’s how it always ends so far. Is it possible they have something slightly more strategic in mind?
And I think that's a good question but I also think it's too early to say.
Bluntly from what I know, I cannot see how Hamas could win a full war against Israel without direct help from an outside power. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to try. As we've seen elsewhere recently it's easier to pretend to have a good army than to have one.
Or it may be a sign that analysts predicting Gaza would become uninhabitable are right (even if the date was wrong) and this is their last roll of the dice to do something drastic that would let them hang on to it before it has to be evacuated.
And civilians end up getting killed. At the moment, it's the Israelis. Later, if the IDF can retaliate, it will be Palestinians as well.
We can be fairly certain the IDF can and will retaliate
I'm certain they will want to.
I want to see more about their actual capabilities in this situation before I definitely say they can.
Er, what? Israel can just send endless missiles into Gaza and strafe it with dozens of jets. The Gazans have zero protection and no way of stopping this
They could vote for parties which want peace and compromise at the next elections. The last ones were in 2006 so I assume the next ones are soon.
Israel could follow suit
It did. It gave land for peace, it proposed generous peace accords, it completely disengaged from Gaza and handed it back to Palestinian control.
It got this, which is why so few Israelis vote for the left any more. The experiment failed, and they won't risk it again until there are credible advocates for peace in positions of power in the Palestinian movement.
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
Because I disagree with you and am entitled to a different view of the issue
If it upsets you then sorry but that is the way it is
Why would it upset me that you have a different opinion? I welcome it!
But you are disagreeing with reality, not my opinion. Lets take one scheme close to you - £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast line. He *announced* it as happening. But it isn't happening. Because it needs to pass the usual funding viability hurdles. And it does not. Looked at repeatedly, rejected repeatedly. Doesn't add up. And every scheme announced has to - in the small print - add up.
So the announcement is false. Wrong. A lie. That isn't my opinion for you to disagree with. It is simply reality.
Have no illusions. The attacks in Israel, killing civilians, and kidnapping of children and parents as bargaining chips are directed from Moscow.
The Putin regime needed to escalate without getting into a direct conflict with NATO, divert interest from Ukraine and wipe out any normalization in the Middle East, and end the US "borrowing" munitions from warehouses in Israel for Ukraine's needs. Russia is betting on a larger conflict in The Middle East after Israel answered Hamas. Then Russia has ensured that the US is busy with other than Ukraine. Russia is on its way to becoming the same terrorist financier that the Soviet Union once was. Every terrorist group that wanted to kill Westerners had a checking account in Moscow. Russia invests in chaos and death to achieve its political goals. Terror is now in the game, and those who supported Ukraine become targets for Russian-financed terrorism.
We are back in the 1980s - Russian/USSR money "outsource" to terrorists and warlords to sow chaos, death, and mayhem for the Russians' cynical goals.
"Trying to link Hamas to Russia is a pretty desperate manoeuvre, especially considering how warm relations are between Netanyahu and Putin. Don’t take those takes seriously."
The Israeli government has no intention of ever agreeing to any sort of peace plan unless it’s a total surrender where they get 95% of the pie and the scraps are left for the Palestinians.
No, it is not.
Seeking to justify attacks on civilians is disgusting.
You should be ashamed of yourself
Where did I justify attacks on civilians. Do you have any idea of the living conditions for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip ?
Civilians on both sides will suffer because of both Hamas and Netanyahu. Without any hope of a peace plan and fair deal for the Palestinians this violence will never end.
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
Because I disagree with you and am entitled to a different view of the issue
If it upsets you then sorry but that is the way it is
Why would it upset me that you have a different opinion? I welcome it!
But you are disagreeing with reality, not my opinion. Lets take one scheme close to you - £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast line. He *announced* it as happening. But it isn't happening. Because it needs to pass the usual funding viability hurdles. And it does not. Looked at repeatedly, rejected repeatedly. Doesn't add up. And every scheme announced has to - in the small print - add up.
So the announcement is false. Wrong. A lie. That isn't my opinion for you to disagree with. It is simply reality.
The announcement has been welcomed here in North Wales and of course it is a long term project
Nobody is suggesting the 36 billion is going to be spent immediately but over the next 10 years or more
Anyway you and I do not agree and on this are unlikely to do so
Sky News coverage is weirdly sanitised. I am not suggesting they should be showing graphic murders (apparently there are loads of internet videos), but it doesn't give any real picture of the situation. It looks like some blokes on motorbikes just rode across the border and took selfies, and that was about it.
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
Because I disagree with you and am entitled to a different view of the issue
If it upsets you then sorry but that is the way it is
Why would it upset me that you have a different opinion? I welcome it!
But you are disagreeing with reality, not my opinion. Lets take one scheme close to you - £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast line. He *announced* it as happening. But it isn't happening. Because it needs to pass the usual funding viability hurdles. And it does not. Looked at repeatedly, rejected repeatedly. Doesn't add up. And every scheme announced has to - in the small print - add up.
So the announcement is false. Wrong. A lie. That isn't my opinion for you to disagree with. It is simply reality.
Simply because of the cost of electrification, in various countries, I expect electric battery trains to become a serious thing.
It’s another example of the planning/cost issue pushing the non-optimal but functional solution.
The mini-nukes that are being pushed now are another. Build them in a factory, ship them to an existing nuclear power station site, set them up. They are less efficient than a big reactor, but planning etc makes big reactors almost impossible.
For the same reason, grid storage is going to tend towards containerised batteries.
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
Because I disagree with you and am entitled to a different view of the issue
If it upsets you then sorry but that is the way it is
Why would it upset me that you have a different opinion? I welcome it!
But you are disagreeing with reality, not my opinion. Lets take one scheme close to you - £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast line. He *announced* it as happening. But it isn't happening. Because it needs to pass the usual funding viability hurdles. And it does not. Looked at repeatedly, rejected repeatedly. Doesn't add up. And every scheme announced has to - in the small print - add up.
So the announcement is false. Wrong. A lie. That isn't my opinion for you to disagree with. It is simply reality.
The announcement has been welcomed here in North Wales and of course it is a long term project
Nobody is suggesting the 36 billion is going to be spent immediately but over the next 10 years or more
Anyway you and I do not agree and on this are unlikely to do so
Red wall voters welcomed the announcements of levelling up money. They have been less welcoming as it has been revealed that there never was any money.
Your north wales voters now expect this to happen. It will not happen. Same for most of the stuff announced - Leamside was just the start. And look at the fury unleashed in the north west and north east.
You can't make unfunded false promises and expect to benefit politically. And isn't unfunded promises the exact thing that you dislike Labour for doing?
Again I have no problem with us disagreeing. I am simply curious about the politics.
I fear that Netanyahu has little political room to manuever. Limited strikes as they are doing won't be enough either militarily or politically.
Hamas openly want to sweep the Israelis into the sea. I fear that Netanyahu will sweep the Gaza strip in the same direction.
The videos are appalling, and they keep coming
The pressure on Netanyahu from his hard right, to do something TERMINAL, will be intense. Can Israel allow Gaza to survive if iGazan militants can simply wander over the frontier and slaughter Israelis in their beds, or kidnap women and children to be tortured in Gaza?
No, it can't. And, in fact, I am not sure any country could tolerate this. Plus, Netanyahu has been deeply humiiated by this dreadful intel failure. No way this is a false flag, it's a disaster for the Israeli military
We must brace for something pretty apocalyptic in response
Horrific scenes in Israel. Families slaughtered at bus stops
The fear is that this Israeli government, the most far right ever, will now enact a Permanent Solution to the Gaza Problem: ejecting them all into Sinai. Perhaps, in a macabre way, that would be better than the endless agony of the last decades
Aaaand we're talking up ethnic cleansing before 9am
What ARE you talking about??
I don’t want this to happen. I don’t want Israelis or Palestinians to die - any of them. The whole thing is a Satanic mess and both sides are at fault - increasingly Israel but the Islamists of Hamas are hardly saints
I am speculating as to possible outcomes and what a very hardline Israeli government might do that no previous Israeli government has dared to do - actually drive the Palestinians out of Gaza. Far right Israeli politicians have talked of this in the past, plenty of times, well now they are in the government - so maybe they will do it
If it happens it would be a crime for the ages - of course - but in the end if the Gazans were given a proper amount of land to settle in Sinai - and their freedom - it might be better than the living prison they inhabit now, which is constantly at war (as we see)
There is no good easy clearly moral solution; quit your pearl clutching
There is, of course, another aspect to any ethnic cleaning of Gaza. Without Gaza, no Palestinian state could possibly be viable, as it is the largest city and the only port (including airport, not that it's operating right now).
It would also change the demographic ratio of the whole area firmly in favour of the Israelis by removing over half the Palestinians.
At that stage the West Bank would almost certainly have to accept its de facto annexation into Israel. The 'facts on the ground' strategy would have borne fruit.
Would Netanyahu do it? Certainly he would, given a pretext.
He has just been given a pretext.
And having emasculated the Israeli courts and split the Knesset, it's hard to see who would stop him.
As the LibDem MP says, it's hard to see how this ends well.
Yes I can absolutely see Netanyahu exploiting this the way you describe. His government is full of people who have PROPOSED versions of this
I once heard Netanyahu compared to Hitler, because of this very issue.
By an Israeli.
Who was not only a senior official of Yad Vashem, but had been forced to leave Iran as a boy because of its own ethnic cleansing of Jews.
Nasty human being (Netanyahu, not Yiftach).
But again, anyone making a hero out of Ismail Haniyeh and his acolytes is overlooking the fact they're just as bad, as any reasoning human being would have worked out but Corbyn apparently couldn't.
This is as OldKingCole says not a conflict where outsiders should look to take sides on moral grounds. Israel is a democracy (rather a flawed one) but it is neither an innocent victim nor an unrelieved goody.
In this particular instance, Israel is surely the victim. Hamas has launched what looks like an armed invasion, with thousands of rockets and apparently indiscriminate slaughter. The provocation was not Israel but more likely Iran's desperation to undermine the recent deals Israel has made with Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Leon might be right that Israel's government will exploit this, but that is not to say they caused or invited it.
I agree this is on Hamas. All the way. They are acting as they have always sought to, on a vast scale apparently, and demonstrating why the Israelis hate and fear them.
I do wonder however whether you're altogether right about the Israeli government reaction (leaving aside, for the moment, the somewhat separate issue about the extent to which their policies over the years have caused it). Sure, this isn't what they *invited* but if Netanyahu can exploit it to capture Gaza and expel the Palestinian population there I suspect privately he will be very pleased. And whatever he says in public, I doubt if he really cares about the lives of Israeli civilians any more than he does Palestinian ones.
A big question is: does Hamas have a different, better plan this time? Something that doesn’t end the normal way - with Israel beating the shit out of gaza for six months and 5000 dead Palestinians?
Coz that’s how it always ends so far. Is it possible they have something slightly more strategic in mind?
And I think that's a good question but I also think it's too early to say.
Bluntly from what I know, I cannot see how Hamas could win a full war against Israel without direct help from an outside power. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to try. As we've seen elsewhere recently it's easier to pretend to have a good army than to have one.
Or it may be a sign that analysts predicting Gaza would become uninhabitable are right (even if the date was wrong) and this is their last roll of the dice to do something drastic that would let them hang on to it before it has to be evacuated.
And civilians end up getting killed. At the moment, it's the Israelis. Later, if the IDF can retaliate, it will be Palestinians as well.
We can be fairly certain the IDF can and will retaliate
I'm certain they will want to.
I want to see more about their actual capabilities in this situation before I definitely say they can.
Er, what? Israel can just send endless missiles into Gaza and strafe it with dozens of jets. The Gazans have zero protection and no way of stopping this
They could vote for parties which want peace and compromise at the next elections. The last ones were in 2006 so I assume the next ones are soon.
Israel could follow suit
It did. It gave land for peace, it proposed generous peace accords, it completely disengaged from Gaza and handed it back to Palestinian control.
It got this, which is why so few Israelis vote for the left any more. The experiment failed, and they won't risk it again until there are credible advocates for peace in positions of power in the Palestinian movement.
Not knowing a great deal about it I take your point.
Have no illusions. The attacks in Israel, killing civilians, and kidnapping of children and parents as bargaining chips are directed from Moscow.
The Putin regime needed to escalate without getting into a direct conflict with NATO, divert interest from Ukraine and wipe out any normalization in the Middle East, and end the US "borrowing" munitions from warehouses in Israel for Ukraine's needs. Russia is betting on a larger conflict in The Middle East after Israel answered Hamas. Then Russia has ensured that the US is busy with other than Ukraine. Russia is on its way to becoming the same terrorist financier that the Soviet Union once was. Every terrorist group that wanted to kill Westerners had a checking account in Moscow. Russia invests in chaos and death to achieve its political goals. Terror is now in the game, and those who supported Ukraine become targets for Russian-financed terrorism.
We are back in the 1980s - Russian/USSR money "outsource" to terrorists and warlords to sow chaos, death, and mayhem for the Russians' cynical goals.
The thing is that the Saudis could seriously pull the plug on Russia by pumping oil. Even if he's growing desperate I can't believe Putin would support this unless he could ensure no fingerprints - unlikely.
The 'conventional wisdom' is that Iran wants to scupper the Saudi/Israel normalisation process. I'd stick with that unless compelling evidence is provided to the contrary.
I also see no-one is mentioning Egypt. Have they made themselves irrelevant?
I fear that Netanyahu has little political room to manuever. Limited strikes as they are doing won't be enough either militarily or politically.
Hamas openly want to sweep the Israelis into the sea. I fear that Netanyahu will sweep the Gaza strip in the same direction.
The videos are appalling, and they keep coming
The pressure on Netanyahu from his hard right, to do something TERMINAL, will be intense. Can Israel allow Gaza to survive if iGazan militants can simply wander over the frontier and slaughter Israelis in their beds, or kidnap women and children to be tortured in Gaza?
No, it can't. And, in fact, I am not sure any country could tolerate this. Plus, Netanyahu has been deeply humiiated by this dreadful intel failure. No way this is a false flag, it's a disaster for the Israeli military
We must brace for something pretty apocalyptic in response
As I said, my perspectives have shifted. Both sides deserve to be able to live in peace and security. The problem for Israel is that the hardline lunatics on both sides do not want that. The Israeli state can largely manage the settler psychopaths, but Hamas / Hezbollah is another thing.
What is clear is that militarily putting Hamas back in their box is not a long term solution. Time after time trouble breaks out and a military push reinstates peace for a while. And then rinse and repeat.
With Netanyahu's political position and allies, I can't see how rinse and repeat will even be attempted this time. They're going to go mob-handed into Gaza, it will be bloody, and hardline lunatics on both sides will cheer on the slaughter of Palestinian civilians...
On another topic I got my flu jag last night, turned down a covid booster jag. Too much noise about the covid vaccine to be healthy.
"Too much noise"? Perhaps you should try to separate signal from noise?
I am perfectly happy with my choice, plenty of evidence of it harming people just as plenty have no problems. I have had 3 without issues , my wife not so lucky and so I choose to not take any more.
"I want them to deliver the high speed rail they promised to the North" - Angela Raynor
Has she spoken to Starmer?
I don't see the two points are incompatible.
Starmer is saying HS2 will be forever unaffordable if Rishi scorches the earth and resells the already procured land to developers etc. Rayner I think is saying "Rishi, don't salt the earth, just build HS2"
Sunak has little over a year before he faces the electorate and if Starmer really was committed to the Birmingham - Manchester link he only needs to state Labour will build the line and warn against any developments in the meantime
I really do believe Starmer is quietly pleased as he can attack Sunak's decision while saying he is the one who will see that all the savings will be spent in the north as proposed
You do insist on endlessly ramping the Tories.
There is no money being spent in the north So many of the schemes announced are a decade in the future Many of them are not schemes at all - simply a study (MNWQ etc) And ALL of them are subject to the usual funding formula - which they won't pass.
Its A Lie. Spouted my idiots. Aimed at morons.
Why are you ramping it?
Because I disagree with you and am entitled to a different view of the issue
If it upsets you then sorry but that is the way it is
Why would it upset me that you have a different opinion? I welcome it!
But you are disagreeing with reality, not my opinion. Lets take one scheme close to you - £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast line. He *announced* it as happening. But it isn't happening. Because it needs to pass the usual funding viability hurdles. And it does not. Looked at repeatedly, rejected repeatedly. Doesn't add up. And every scheme announced has to - in the small print - add up.
So the announcement is false. Wrong. A lie. That isn't my opinion for you to disagree with. It is simply reality.
The announcement has been welcomed here in North Wales and of course it is a long term project
Nobody is suggesting the 36 billion is going to be spent immediately but over the next 10 years or more
Anyway you and I do not agree and on this are unlikely to do so
Red wall voters welcomed the announcements of levelling up money. They have been less welcoming as it has been revealed that there never was any money.
Your north wales voters now expect this to happen. It will not happen. Same for most of the stuff announced - Leamside was just the start. And look at the fury unleashed in the north west and north east.
You can't make unfunded false promises and expect to benefit politically. And isn't unfunded promises the exact thing that you dislike Labour for doing?
Again I have no problem with us disagreeing. I am simply curious about the politics.
Hello RP. I noticed your logo. I am also enjoying the album.
I'm not involved with EYFS any more. But I can't see how exclusions help? Even totally unqualified support staff cannot be recruited. Because the pay is the same as a cleaner. For a much more high stress job. We've gone from supply TA'S who are plain incompetent, to ones who aren't literate or numerate about a year ago, to ones without even a basic command of the English language now. If you can get them at all. This isn't an attempt to re-raise lockdown as a policy. Whether it was right or wrong, it happened. We can't change that. But we aren't dealing with the fallout. It's like not defending corners because you're too busy arguing about the three you conceded last game.
Unreal. A 154 majority at the *low* point on the scale range.
Meanwhile, in a dispatch from the Conservative conference;
For members, an event on Sunday was set up to update them on the Conservatives' 80/20 approach to the next election. This strategy, carved out in 2019, sees them fighting to hold the eighty most marginal seats and attacking in the twenty they just missed out on last time. This still appears to be the party's strategic line, rather than some psyop to distract the left. In multiple conversations at the conference, people talked about going off to campaign in places where polling now points to losses of 10k or more. Others, based in the real likely marginals worried about a lack of central support.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Very different, yes, and then offsetting measures can make the difference to net zero from there.
I'll be sticking with meat 7 days a week like I currently do. Might sometimes be 6 if a meal I fancy coincidentally is meat-free, but at 3 meals a day the odds of all 3 being vegetarian is pretty slim pickings.
Do you not eat fish or game? You should. NOM NOM
Of course I do. I'm counting fish and game and other seafood and poultry etc within the subheading of meat.
6. International flights have knocked me back this year, under 4 without them.
Slightly baffled by how Leon has such a low one...
I really do lead quite an austere life outside my flights. No car, no pets, a small flat. No second home. I don’t often eat red meat these days. I recycle quite a lot. I walk everywhere I can (I like living in central London for that reason, in part). I use public transport. I don’t buy much new stuff any more - I have all I want. And so on
The idea red meat is a problem is sheer propaganda.
Tp say that is science denial , I'm afraid. It really is an issue and a larger one than most realise. Higher trophic levels than plant food, bowel gases, etc.
Of course, the leather and wool are also important products. No idea how far that compensates relative to plastic.
But, as Leon says, eating game is a partial mitigation - deer are already there and already weeds, if woke admittedly in some views.
Red meat is a bit of a problem, but I'd disagree with you and say that is been overblown, because of the way global warming potentials have been used to convert methane emissions to CO2-equivalent values.
As usual, something complicated and nuanced was simplified too far, and the wrong conclusions were drawn. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion are climate destiny. Methane emissions from agriculture are climate details.
The main environmental reason to reduce meat consumption is that it uses so much more land, which reduces the amount leftover for wild habitat.
But that forgets the oil used for intensive agriculture, inclouding transport, fertiliser for feedstock grains, and so on.
All of those things relate to the way agriculture is done, rather than being an inherent part of agriculture. It would be like criticizing electric cars because some of the electricity is produced by burning gas, which misses the point that we can switch electricity production away from fossil fuels.
If you have grass-fed cattle, with electricity-powered farm machinery, etc, then it's very different, no?
Very different, yes, and then offsetting measures can make the difference to net zero from there.
I'll be sticking with meat 7 days a week like I currently do. Might sometimes be 6 if a meal I fancy coincidentally is meat-free, but at 3 meals a day the odds of all 3 being vegetarian is pretty slim pickings.
Do you not eat fish or game? You should. NOM NOM
Of course I do. I'm counting fish and game and other seafood and poultry etc within the subheading of meat.
They're not plants or vegetables.
Then fair enough. I am the same as you. I rarely have an entirely veggie meal. Once a week? But I often only have one significant meal a day so that's not as mad as it sounds
I'm not involved with EYFS any more. But I can't see how exclusions help? Even totally unqualified support staff cannot be recruited. Because the pay is the same as a cleaner. For a much more high stress job. We've gone from supply TA'S who are plain incompetent, to ones who aren't literate or numerate about a year ago, to ones without even a basic command of the English language now. If you can get them at all. This isn't an attempt to re-raise lockdown as a policy. Whether it was right or wrong, it happened. We can't change that. But we aren't dealing with the fallout. It's like not defending corners because you're too busy arguing about the three you conceded last game.
The exclusions “help” in the sense of preventing the collapse of teaching for the other children.
They are, of course, an abandonment of the children in question.
It makes you realise why the Victorians were big on “interfering with the lives of the lower orders” as the Guardian might put it. Humans haven’t really changed.
Comments
If it upsets you then sorry but that is the way it is
If you put meat in every meal (or even every day), it adds up to more meat than humans have mostly eaten through history.
Russia has nothing to gain from directly menacing a big military player like Israel, and a lot to lose
Relations between Jerusalem and Moscow are actually quite good. This is helpful for Putin
Assisting the lunatics of hamas to slaughter Jews gets him zero benefit. Its an insane theory
I hope you are considering the extermination of your dog as he is a pointless imposition on the environment, eating meat and pooing toxins. Or, you prefer to think of ways to offset his carbon footprint because you like him
(The depressing thing, apart from the undemocratic salting of the land, is what this decision says about what the government thinks will go down well with the voters. Forget doing anything where the benefits will go to our children and grandchildren. We want cheaper bus fares now.)
In Ireland, for example, the debate is all about herd numbers, and whether the government will force a cull on cattle farmers to reduce emissions. It's completely wrong-headed and is unnecessarily threatening.
No idea if this is true of Aussie beef.
Here is the problem. Hardline settler lunatics seem to want to take by force the land they believe was given to them by God. Hardline Palestinian lunatics want to commit genocide and sweep the Jews into the sea. And it is really not helped by the neighbouring countries who haven't simply absorbed people - these "refugee camps" are idiotic as they're generations in.
Israel is a functioning democracy and can't put up with madness like
Netanyahuthese attacks. I don't know how far this will go, but its hard to see how it can resist going into Gaza on a mission to eradicate the threat. And that will be bloody and brutal.My wife and I had our flu jabs last week and out 7th covid vaccine which we were told has been adjusted for the new variant
Mind you we have both had covid and it was horrible
The Iranians however - yes. They make the drones for a start. They are allies of hamas. They loathe Israel. And despite what you say I don’t believe it takes a military genius to work out how to drop a bomb from a drone. Indeed it’s probably quite easy
It’s Iran
Which was the closest that Israel ever came to defeat.
9.30 The only press box in the world with a fountain?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/66854285/page/3
Almost reluctant to put on the news these days and just look to the family and our garden
He won't be condemning anyone anytime soon.
Trust your good lady is well now
All the best
Even a chicken stew is better with a few pieces of unsmoked streaky bacon in it, though. So red meat not entirely avoided.
Steven Pinker's book, Enlightenment Now, was very good on this.
Today looks as if it one of those days with repercussions that are too depressing to consider
It got this, which is why so few Israelis vote for the left any more. The experiment failed, and they won't risk it again until there are credible advocates for peace in positions of power in the Palestinian movement.
But you are disagreeing with reality, not my opinion. Lets take one scheme close to you - £1bn to electrify the North Wales Coast line. He *announced* it as happening. But it isn't happening. Because it needs to pass the usual funding viability hurdles. And it does not. Looked at repeatedly, rejected repeatedly. Doesn't add up. And every scheme announced has to - in the small print - add up.
So the announcement is false. Wrong. A lie. That isn't my opinion for you to disagree with. It is simply reality.
So for $340 (soon to be $170) you can actually decarbonise your flight.
The real question is which will be cheaper - biological sourced kerosene or doing this.
They promised Russia that they would "work to weaken the West"
Via @sumlenny
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1710579740287918548?s=20
Which is why it should be replaced with actual carbon extraction from the air
{Cuba Gooding June mode}
Show me the graphite!
Hamas openly want to sweep the Israelis into the sea. I fear that Netanyahu will sweep the Gaza strip in the same direction.
Have no illusions. The attacks in Israel, killing civilians, and kidnapping of children and parents as bargaining chips are directed from Moscow.
The Putin regime needed to escalate without getting into a direct conflict with NATO, divert interest from Ukraine and wipe out any normalization in the Middle East, and end the US "borrowing" munitions from warehouses in Israel for Ukraine's needs. Russia is betting on a larger conflict in The Middle East after Israel answered Hamas. Then Russia has ensured that the US is busy with other than Ukraine. Russia is on its way to becoming the same terrorist financier that the Soviet Union once was. Every terrorist group that wanted to kill Westerners had a checking account in Moscow. Russia invests in chaos and death to achieve its political goals. Terror is now in the game, and those who supported Ukraine become targets for Russian-financed terrorism.
We are back in the 1980s - Russian/USSR money "outsource" to terrorists and warlords to sow chaos, death, and mayhem for the Russians' cynical goals.
https://www.politico.eu/article/did-vladimir-putin-support-anti-western-terrorists-as-a-young-kgb-officer/
https://x.com/Cyberdefensecom/status/1710604643372356091?s=20
"Trying to link Hamas to Russia is a pretty desperate manoeuvre, especially considering how warm relations are between Netanyahu and Putin. Don’t take those takes seriously."
https://x.com/OzKaterji/status/1710599786389274742?s=20
Civilians on both sides will suffer because of both Hamas and Netanyahu. Without any hope of a peace plan and fair deal for the Palestinians this violence will never end.
So I’m not ashamed to be pointing out the truth !
Nobody is suggesting the 36 billion is going to be spent immediately but over the next 10 years or more
Anyway you and I do not agree and on this are unlikely to do so
It’s another example of the planning/cost issue pushing the non-optimal but functional solution.
The mini-nukes that are being pushed now are another. Build them in a factory, ship them to an existing nuclear power station site, set them up. They are less efficient than a big reactor, but planning etc makes big reactors almost impossible.
For the same reason, grid storage is going to tend towards containerised batteries.
Your north wales voters now expect this to happen. It will not happen. Same for most of the stuff announced - Leamside was just the start. And look at the fury unleashed in the north west and north east.
You can't make unfunded false promises and expect to benefit politically. And isn't unfunded promises the exact thing that you dislike Labour for doing?
Again I have no problem with us disagreeing. I am simply curious about the politics.
The pressure on Netanyahu from his hard right, to do something TERMINAL, will be intense. Can Israel allow Gaza to survive if iGazan militants can simply wander over the frontier and slaughter Israelis in their beds, or kidnap women and children to be tortured in Gaza?
No, it can't. And, in fact, I am not sure any country could tolerate this. Plus, Netanyahu has been deeply humiiated by this dreadful intel failure. No way this is a false flag, it's a disaster for the Israeli military
We must brace for something pretty apocalyptic in response
Average seat projection:
LAB: 420
CON: 149
LD: 23
Labour majority: 190
Obviously a long way to go, but some details to follow... 🧵
Here are the ranges involved in the study:
LAB: 402-437
CON: 132-169
LD: 15-31
LAB majority: 154-224
https://x.com/michaelsavage/status/1710612901197689313?s=20
The 'conventional wisdom' is that Iran wants to scupper the Saudi/Israel normalisation process. I'd stick with that unless compelling evidence is provided to the contrary.
I also see no-one is mentioning Egypt. Have they made themselves irrelevant?
What is clear is that militarily putting Hamas back in their box is not a long term solution. Time after time trouble breaks out and a military push reinstates peace for a while. And then rinse and repeat.
With Netanyahu's political position and allies, I can't see how rinse and repeat will even be attempted this time. They're going to go mob-handed into Gaza, it will be bloody, and hardline lunatics on both sides will cheer on the slaughter of Palestinian civilians...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/oct/07/covid-generation-under-fives-excluded-from-schools-in-england
I'm not involved with EYFS any more. But I can't see how exclusions help?
Even totally unqualified support staff cannot be recruited. Because the pay is the same as a cleaner. For a much more high stress job. We've gone from supply TA'S who are plain incompetent, to ones who aren't literate or numerate about a year ago, to ones without even a basic command of the English language now.
If you can get them at all.
This isn't an attempt to re-raise lockdown as a policy. Whether it was right or wrong, it happened. We can't change that. But we aren't dealing with the fallout.
It's like not defending corners because you're too busy arguing about the three you conceded last game.
For members, an event on Sunday was set up to update them on the Conservatives' 80/20 approach to the next election. This strategy, carved out in 2019, sees them fighting to hold the eighty most marginal seats and attacking in the twenty they just missed out on last time. This still appears to be the party's strategic line, rather than some psyop to distract the left. In multiple conversations at the conference, people talked about going off to campaign in places where polling now points to losses of 10k or more. Others, based in the real likely marginals worried about a lack of central support.
https://www.joxleywrites.jmoxley.co.uk/p/the-masque-of-blue-death
They're not plants or vegetables.
They are, of course, an abandonment of the children in question.
It makes you realise why the Victorians were big on “interfering with the lives of the lower orders” as the Guardian might put it. Humans haven’t really changed.