Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Truss is expected to turn up every year for the rest of her life, and every year everybody is going to ask "Who is that and why is she there?"
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Medlars picked on my visit to Cambridge. Huge crop and nicely rotting. I spotted the tree a couple of years ago. Never found one I could get access to before. Lovely flavours. Very messy to process though.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Truss is expected to turn up every year for the rest of her life, and every year everybody is going to ask "Who is that and why is she there?"
Medlars picked on my visit to Cambridge. Huge crop and nicely rotting. I spotted the tree a couple of years ago. Never found one I could get access to before. Lovely flavours. Very messy to process though.
We've got a big medlar tree, full of fruit this year. What do we do with them?
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
The Danish government is run by passably sane people who on the whole spend that money wisely and well in ways that benefit the Danish people.
Can you imagine a government advised by Simon Case and containing Richard Burgon doing either of those? Spending it on cheap booze and backhanders for their mates, more like it.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
As a Conservative Party member I am really horrified about the possibility of Braverman being leader or PM. It's not just a left right thing I just don't feel she's a decent enough person. But whilst she's a poor Home Secretary (and we've had some poor ones under Blair as well), in some ways I don't mind her staying in post a bit longer, if that just shows everyone why she should not be leader and makes sure she never us.. I'm not knocking any doors for her in 2029.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Truss is expected to turn up every year for the rest of her life, and every year everybody is going to ask "Who is that and why is she there?"
"OMG the Cenotaph has fallen down! Why does she keep shouting 'Growth!'?"
Give us the strength to show them how to do both now.
🎶Because the greatest love of all Is happening to me I found the greatest love of all Inside of me The greatest love of all Is easy to achieve Learning to love yourself It is the greatest love of all 🎶
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
Sample: "What I saw [20 years ago as an undergraduate] was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob."
Judging people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
Medlars picked on my visit to Cambridge. Huge crop and nicely rotting. I spotted the tree a couple of years ago. Never found one I could get access to before. Lovely flavours. Very messy to process though.
We've got a big medlar tree, full of fruit this year. What do we do with them?
Envy!
Got to let them rot first. Then squeeze out the brown goo. You then have to remove the stones. All very messy and you need a lot. I cooked mine up with Muscovado or Molasses and used it as a layer in the base of custard tarts. Taste of sticky toffee pudding. But there is a lot more you can do that I haven't tried yet. One I want to do is medlar jelly which I enjoy with cheese. Need to look up on internet as haven't tried to make that yet.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Brown, Blair and Major manage to all effectively look the same age there, whereas Cameron doesn't look too far off where he was in 2016.
I presume Boris is moonlighting as Doc Brown in the BTTF stage production.
Apart from looking dishevelled, the thing that struck me that he was the only former PM not wearing a coat.
He's so disorganised, it is what was inevitable about his premiership unravelling.
Hairstyle even looks like Michael Foot. Has he gone gray ?
I know somebody who occasionally gets to see Boris Johnson up close and personal (no, not like that) and they are convinced Boris Johnson is developing a bald patch which he is desperate to hide.
I think there were some telling shots when he was still doing PMQs- some of the camera angles in the Chamber are pretty brutal.
Mostly because I remember developing a BoJo=Samson theory.
He's not coming back.
I think if he had the guts to go 'full shave' he could have a touch of the Mussolini about him.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
The Danish government is run by passably sane people who on the whole spend that money wisely and well in ways that benefit the Danish people.
Can you imagine a government advised by Simon Case and containing Richard Burgon doing either of those? Spending it on cheap booze and backhanders for their mates, more like it.
And Sunak's worse.
I doubt Simon Case will be advising the next Labour government.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
The Danish government is run by passably sane people who on the whole spend that money wisely and well in ways that benefit the Danish people.
Can you imagine a government advised by Simon Case and containing Richard Burgon doing either of those? Spending it on cheap booze and backhanders for their mates, more like it.
And Sunak's worse.
I doubt Simon Case will be advising the next Labour government.
Unless there is a wholesale clearout of the top echelons of the Civil Service it will make little difference. They're all much of muchness.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
So, basically, it's like every other policy she's ever come up with in her life?
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
Brown, Blair and Major manage to all effectively look the same age there, whereas Cameron doesn't look too far off where he was in 2016.
I presume Boris is moonlighting as Doc Brown in the BTTF stage production.
Apart from looking dishevelled, the thing that struck me that he was the only former PM not wearing a coat.
He's so disorganised, it is what was inevitable about his premiership unravelling.
Hairstyle even looks like Michael Foot. Has he gone gray ?
I know somebody who occasionally gets to see Boris Johnson up close and personal (no, not like that) and they are convinced Boris Johnson is developing a bald patch which he is desperate to hide.
I think there were some telling shots when he was still doing PMQs- some of the camera angles in the Chamber are pretty brutal.
Mostly because I remember developing a BoJo=Samson theory.
He's not coming back.
I think if he had the guts to go 'full shave' he could have a touch of the Mussolini about him.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
So, basically, it's like every other policy she's ever come up with in her life?
She has come up with some ok ideas but this one is completely mad. It is totally reckless.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
So, basically, it's like every other policy she's ever come up with in her life?
She has come up with some ok ideas but this one is completely mad. It is totally reckless.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
She’s likely to have plenty of time on the backbenches.
Amazing how we have pretty much all gone through a sequence since the 2019 GE of:
1. Labour will take at least two elections to demolish that 80 seat majority. 2. The Tories may struggle to maintain a clear majority next time. 3. We could be heading for a Labour-led hung parliament. 4. We could be heading for a small Labour majority. 5. We could be heading for a 1997-style Labour landslide...
... and we're now edging into:
6. The Tories might not even be the official opposition!
There's a piece in the draft section of the PB servers which says
'Was the 2019 election for the Tories what. 1906* was for the Liberals?'
I may finish it soon.
*or 1910, which is the reason I haven't finished it.
I may need to speak to @ydoethur to hear his thoughts.
As much as I would like this to be true I’m not sure it is. A major factor in the decline of the Liberals was the emergence of a party which could better represent one of its core constituencies, unionised labour. Unless a viable party emerges that can win the right of centre, patriotic type of vote then the Tories will always have enough support to remain the official opposition.
Incidentally I’ve always thought it was a tragedy that Labour eclipsed the Liberals as the second party because in reality they were much worse at competing with the Conservatives as a party of government. The old Liberal Party could put together a far wider coalition of voters than Labour has ever been able to do with the exception of Blair. We might have been better governed throughout the 20th century if the Tories weren’t quite so electorally dominant.
The Liberals won majorities in 1859 (for a given value of 'Liberal' since the party didn't actually exist until after the election) 1865, and 1868.
Then in 1880 and 1906.
All those elections bar the last have in common that they were fought on a very restricted franchise.
They weren't actually very good at appealing to mass segments of the population. After the 1885 reforms, which widened the franchise to effectively the majority of adult males, they won one overall majority. That was forty years before Labour emerged.
In particular, they were opposed to votes for women because they knew that women were unlikely to vote Liberal in large numbers (with very rare exceptions - 1906 would have been one).
If we went back to a franchise restricted to the top 10-20% by wealth and property that would do more for Liberal prospects than PR would, the typical LD voter now an upper middle class Remainer. Won't happen of course
I sometimes like to consider various restricted franchises as a thought-experiment. For example, suppose you restricted the franchise only to people who were parents, on the basis that only parents have a long-term stake in the country? What might be the result?
Would it encourage people to have children a bit earlier, to gain a vote? Aside from the after difference, how differently do childless people vote?
That's an interesting thought experiment.
I think it would be quite similar to the way things work now with the grey vote. Only instead of the Tories pandering to pensioners at the expense of the rest of us, you'd have the main parties tripping over each other to offer parent-friendly policies.
People like me, childless by choice, would probably just leave the country, on the basis of a) being disenfranchised and b) seeing an increasing amount of our taxes being spent on things we don't use in ways we can't change. The tax take and population may actually shrink as a result.
Then you have people who are childless through infertility. People literally born without a vote. That's before getting into the complexities of gay people, transgender people, etc.
I'm not sure I would want to live in a parent-ocracy. At least with a gerontocracy, I can guarantee I'm going to get old (or won't be around to care).
If you want to raise birth rates, I'd do it with tax breaks. An additional 10% off your taxes for every additional child. Pop ten out and never pay tax again! Breed for Britain, etc...
How about we turn it around: the moment you have a child, you lose your vote?
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Genuine question: is there generous welfare in the US?
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
She’s likely to have plenty of time on the backbenches.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Genuine question: is there generous welfare in the US?
AIUI in places like San Fran it can get pretty generous for the homeless, yes - tho that might be assessed against the low bar of American welfare, in general
I have read quite widely on this. I am fascinated by divergent American trends: a supposedly booming economy, yet with collapsing life expectancy, bad infant mortality, and so many other indicators flashing red. It is a mystery, and I love those
Sample: "What I saw [20 years ago as an undergraduate] was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob."
Judging people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
What did he say? The tweet doesn't have any quote from him? (That I can see - as a non-twitter/x premium-double-plus-good subscriber anyway).
Donald Trump said (or wrote):-
"In honor of our great veterans on Veteran's Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
So, basically, it's like every other policy she's ever come up with in her life?
She has come up with some ok ideas but this one is completely mad. It is totally reckless.
Reckless, or with intent ?
I just can't understand it. All MP's will have a vast amount of casework to do with homeless issues. People are largely sympathetic to homeless people, more so than in earlier times. This is so idiotic it just astounding, it is hard to really put it in to words.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
There was a tent city in Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
So, basically, it's like every other policy she's ever come up with in her life?
She has come up with some ok ideas but this one is completely mad. It is totally reckless.
Reckless, or with intent ?
I just can't understand it. All MP's will have a vast amount of casework to do with homeless issues. People are largely sympathetic to homeless people, more so than in earlier times. This is so idiotic it just astounding, it is hard to really put it in to words.
It is just about attention and division, not logic.
Sample: "What I saw [20 years ago as an undergraduate] was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob."
Judging people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
What did he say? The tweet doesn't have any quote from him? (That I can see - as a non-twitter/x premium-double-plus-good subscriber anyway).
Donald Trump said (or wrote):-
"In honor of our great veterans on Veteran's Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
(Retyped by me so E&OE.)
It has just occurred to me that depending how you view the comma after "Country" in the fourth line, Trump might be hiding the truth in plain sight. Does the rest of the sentence from "lie, steal," onwards belong to the list of things Communists and Fascists do, or the list of things "we will" do?
Amazing how we have pretty much all gone through a sequence since the 2019 GE of:
1. Labour will take at least two elections to demolish that 80 seat majority. 2. The Tories may struggle to maintain a clear majority next time. 3. We could be heading for a Labour-led hung parliament. 4. We could be heading for a small Labour majority. 5. We could be heading for a 1997-style Labour landslide...
... and we're now edging into:
6. The Tories might not even be the official opposition!
No we aren't, maybe 6 might have been possible last October, it certainly isn't now.
Given the economic situation and inflation Starmer will face if he becomes PM I certainly wouldn't count on his getting a long honeymoon either
Draw a straight trend line through the Tory support chart on this and think long and hard about where it takes you to by next October.
Around 25-30% of the vote but once Labour are in power they are responsible for the economy
Nah we'll do what you did and spend at least ten years saying it was all down to the mess you left us with.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
There was a tent city in Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986.
Hmm. Was there? I was actually living very near to Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986. I don't remember anything like a tent city as we see now in west coast USA. Some homeless? Yes, for sure, also on the Embankment and around the Strand
So it seems she's not the only one with a chequered relationship with the truth.
Much Ado About Nothing. It looks like it is Jeremy Hunt's jokes about gold wallpaper that caused the confusion. I've bought Nad's book but not read it yet.
Amazing how we have pretty much all gone through a sequence since the 2019 GE of:
1. Labour will take at least two elections to demolish that 80 seat majority. 2. The Tories may struggle to maintain a clear majority next time. 3. We could be heading for a Labour-led hung parliament. 4. We could be heading for a small Labour majority. 5. We could be heading for a 1997-style Labour landslide...
... and we're now edging into:
6. The Tories might not even be the official opposition!
There's a piece in the draft section of the PB servers which says
'Was the 2019 election for the Tories what. 1906* was for the Liberals?'
I may finish it soon.
*or 1910, which is the reason I haven't finished it.
I may need to speak to @ydoethur to hear his thoughts.
As much as I would like this to be true I’m not sure it is. A major factor in the decline of the Liberals was the emergence of a party which could better represent one of its core constituencies, unionised labour. Unless a viable party emerges that can win the right of centre, patriotic type of vote then the Tories will always have enough support to remain the official opposition.
Incidentally I’ve always thought it was a tragedy that Labour eclipsed the Liberals as the second party because in reality they were much worse at competing with the Conservatives as a party of government. The old Liberal Party could put together a far wider coalition of voters than Labour has ever been able to do with the exception of Blair. We might have been better governed throughout the 20th century if the Tories weren’t quite so electorally dominant.
The Liberals won majorities in 1859 (for a given value of 'Liberal' since the party didn't actually exist until after the election) 1865, and 1868.
Then in 1880 and 1906.
All those elections bar the last have in common that they were fought on a very restricted franchise.
They weren't actually very good at appealing to mass segments of the population. After the 1885 reforms, which widened the franchise to effectively the majority of adult males, they won one overall majority. That was forty years before Labour emerged.
In particular, they were opposed to votes for women because they knew that women were unlikely to vote Liberal in large numbers (with very rare exceptions - 1906 would have been one).
If we went back to a franchise restricted to the top 10-20% by wealth and property that would do more for Liberal prospects than PR would, the typical LD voter now an upper middle class Remainer. Won't happen of course
A policy of grinding down the lower classes/rejoin the EU, would be a runner, if we had the 1867 franchise.
This weekend London has 3 marches: 1 by some nasty football thugs (fortunately small) and 2 larger pro-Palestine ones, and some pretty unpleasant anti-Semitic / racist placards plus some other equally nasty verbal attacks on Jews elsewhere in London.
In Paris meanwhile 100,000 march against anti-Semitism.
If the French can do it, so should we.
Whatever your views on Gaza, Israel, the West Bank etc, we should all be against anti-semitism, especially at a time when there has been a steep rise, in such attacks, our Jewish citizens are feeling scared and vulnerable in their home country and a month after a sadistic attack on very many Israelis and others.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Amazing how we have pretty much all gone through a sequence since the 2019 GE of:
1. Labour will take at least two elections to demolish that 80 seat majority. 2. The Tories may struggle to maintain a clear majority next time. 3. We could be heading for a Labour-led hung parliament. 4. We could be heading for a small Labour majority. 5. We could be heading for a 1997-style Labour landslide...
... and we're now edging into:
6. The Tories might not even be the official opposition!
There's a piece in the draft section of the PB servers which says
'Was the 2019 election for the Tories what. 1906* was for the Liberals?'
I may finish it soon.
*or 1910, which is the reason I haven't finished it.
I may need to speak to @ydoethur to hear his thoughts.
As much as I would like this to be true I’m not sure it is. A major factor in the decline of the Liberals was the emergence of a party which could better represent one of its core constituencies, unionised labour. Unless a viable party emerges that can win the right of centre, patriotic type of vote then the Tories will always have enough support to remain the official opposition.
Incidentally I’ve always thought it was a tragedy that Labour eclipsed the Liberals as the second party because in reality they were much worse at competing with the Conservatives as a party of government. The old Liberal Party could put together a far wider coalition of voters than Labour has ever been able to do with the exception of Blair. We might have been better governed throughout the 20th century if the Tories weren’t quite so electorally dominant.
The Liberals won majorities in 1859 (for a given value of 'Liberal' since the party didn't actually exist until after the election) 1865, and 1868.
Then in 1880 and 1906.
All those elections bar the last have in common that they were fought on a very restricted franchise.
They weren't actually very good at appealing to mass segments of the population. After the 1885 reforms, which widened the franchise to effectively the majority of adult males, they won one overall majority. That was forty years before Labour emerged.
In particular, they were opposed to votes for women because they knew that women were unlikely to vote Liberal in large numbers (with very rare exceptions - 1906 would have been one).
If we went back to a franchise restricted to the top 10-20% by wealth and property that would do more for Liberal prospects than PR would, the typical LD voter now an upper middle class Remainer. Won't happen of course
I sometimes like to consider various restricted franchises as a thought-experiment. For example, suppose you restricted the franchise only to people who were parents, on the basis that only parents have a long-term stake in the country? What might be the result?
Would it encourage people to have children a bit earlier, to gain a vote? Aside from the after difference, how differently do childless people vote?
That's an interesting thought experiment.
I think it would be quite similar to the way things work now with the grey vote. Only instead of the Tories pandering to pensioners at the expense of the rest of us, you'd have the main parties tripping over each other to offer parent-friendly policies.
People like me, childless by choice, would probably just leave the country, on the basis of a) being disenfranchised and b) seeing an increasing amount of our taxes being spent on things we don't use in ways we can't change. The tax take and population may actually shrink as a result.
Then you have people who are childless through infertility. People literally born without a vote. That's before getting into the complexities of gay people, transgender people, etc.
I'm not sure I would want to live in a parent-ocracy. At least with a gerontocracy, I can guarantee I'm going to get old (or won't be around to care).
If you want to raise birth rates, I'd do it with tax breaks. An additional 10% off your taxes for every additional child. Pop ten out and never pay tax again! Breed for Britain, etc...
How about we turn it around: the moment you have a child, you lose your vote?
Do you own shares in Durex?
But it's an interesting question. My guess is people who want to have babies will still have babies. It's a pretty built-in biological instinct for most. Most would probably choose doing their, uh, duty in the bedroom, over doing their civic duty at the ballot box.
You might see the reverse of the situation I describe above, with less money going to schools. Maybe the birth rate would decline if the cost of having children rose, e.g. the reimposition of VAT on children's clothes. As I think the cost of kids (via things like the cost of housing and daycare) is what reduces the birth rate now.
Again, civic minded people who cared about voting would move abroad, so you'd probably see fewer people and less tax take as a result.
Personally, I like the idea of disenfranchising everyone who doesn't do at least a month's worth of volunteer work in every five year electoral cycle.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
Yeah but it is bizarre to try and stop a problem that doesn't yet exist from happening by a pre-emptive policy . I just think 'banning tents' is an odd message to send out when there is a massive homelessness problem they created and cannot solve. Do they really think that they can blame the homeless people themselves?
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
As with so many other things this country’s politicians go far too heavy on rhetoric and too light on actual policy. The Tories in particular seem to want to speak loudly and carry a very small stick. Rough sleeping, as shown during Covid, is a policy choice. Government can end it overnight.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
There was a tent city in Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986.
Hmm. Was there? I was actually living very near to Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986. I don't remember anything like a tent city as we see now in west coast USA. Some homeless? Yes, for sure, also on the Embankment and around the Strand
There was a permanent homeless encampment, yes. Was it large? Perhaps not. Was it there? Definitely. Steinbeck had something to report about West Coast homelessness 90 years ago. It isn't new. But. The question remains. If you don't want folk living in tents, then where will they live? Simply taking away their tent isn't an answer.
This weekend London has 3 marches: 1 by some nasty football thugs (fortunately small) and 2 larger pro-Palestine ones, and some pretty unpleasant anti-Semitic / racist placards plus some other equally nasty verbal attacks on Jews elsewhere in London.
In Paris meanwhile 100,000 march against anti-Semitism.
If the French can do it, so should we.
Whatever your views on Gaza, Israel, the West Bank etc, we should all be against anti-semitism, especially at a time when there has been a steep rise, in such attacks, our Jewish citizens are feeling scared and vulnerable in their home country and a month after a sadistic attack on very many Israelis and others.
There’s a fascinating article on the BBC about how National Rally are moving into the mainstream, by taking part, just as the French left are moving out of the mainstream, by ceasing to object to anti-semitism.
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
So it seems she's not the only one with a chequered relationship with the truth.
Much Ado About Nothing. It looks like it is Jeremy Hunt's jokes about gold wallpaper that caused the confusion. I've bought Nad's book but not read it yet.
I think Dorries is right to be pissed off and seeking a grovelling apology tbh. He made her look like a total fool, and did it as his sign off so she had no chance to respond. And with a complete lie - a red painted wall, whilst I am sure the paint was ludicrously expensive, ain't a gold wallpapered wall. They are both walls. There the similarity ends.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
The US is a little different though: those homeless in San Francisco and Los Angeles, they aren't from there. (Or not disproportionately.)
Good treatment of the homeless in California draws them in from Kansas and Missouri.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
She’s likely to have plenty of time on the backbenches.
But a decent chance of being leader of the opposition at least.
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
There was a tent city in Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986.
Hmm. Was there? I was actually living very near to Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986. I don't remember anything like a tent city as we see now in west coast USA. Some homeless? Yes, for sure, also on the Embankment and around the Strand
"via things like tents, and generous welfare"??
How does UK's DWP policies encourage people to live in a tent?
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Fair point, but we have a very large number of over-55s/pensioners and they are perfectly willing to ignore immutable truths in order to get paid. You know what they say about how markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent? You're entirely right, but there are over 12.5 million pensioners in the UK, they vote like mad, and they want their money. Truss didn't fail quickly because of cultural Marxism or woke or any Kulturkampf gubbins, she was kicked out because she came within inches of detonating the pension funds.
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
It's an article of faith for neolibs - it doesn't need evidence (which is just as well).
Now now. The much-vaunted 'Scandi' economies got rich with low tax and low regulation, and since they switched, they've been on a slow, natural-resource insulated descent. If you have a shred of data to show me dynamic growth in Denmark's economy correlating directly with the growth of its regulatory and tax burden, by all means share it. You won't, because it won't exist. It's fantasy economics.
Here you go. It's pretty clear, Denmark versus the UK over 50 years. Denmark in darker blue, is the top line in each chart.
Sample: "What I saw [20 years ago as an undergraduate] was a worldview that replaced basic ideas of good and evil with a new rubric: the powerless (good) and the powerful (bad). It replaced lots of things. Colorblindness with race-obsession. Ideas with identity. Debate with denunciation. Persuasion with public shaming. The rule of law with the fury of the mob."
Judging people by the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character.
What did he say? The tweet doesn't have any quote from him? (That I can see - as a non-twitter/x premium-double-plus-good subscriber anyway).
Donald Trump said (or wrote):-
"In honor of our great veterans on Veteran's Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country, we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
(Retyped by me so E&OE.)
It has just occurred to me that depending how you view the comma after "Country" in the fourth line, Trump might be hiding the truth in plain sight. Does the rest of the sentence from "lie, steal," onwards belong to the list of things Communists and Fascists do, or the list of things "we will" do?
As Kristol posted when this hit X:
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 19h Reads better in the original German.
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Fair point, but we have a very large number of over-55s/pensioners and they are perfectly willing to ignore immutable truths in order to get paid. You know what they say about how markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent? You're entirely right, but there are over 12.5 million pensioners in the UK, they vote like mad, and they want their money. Truss didn't fail quickly because of cultural Marxism or woke or any Kulturkampf gubbins, she was kicked out because she came within inches of detonating the pension funds.
I don't really want to go over why Truss was forced to resign, but as a general point, I dislike the resentment of one generation toward another for having (in this case) property and benefits. It's divide and rule. The real culprit is the Government.
BenPointer - How generous the US welfare system is depends partly on the state and city. But every state has a Medicaid program providing medical care, as do DC and Puerto Rico. (Benefits do vary from state to state.) "Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States, providing free health insurance to 85 million low-income and disabled people as of 2022;[3] in 2019, the program paid for half of all U.S. births.[4] As of 2017, the total annual cost of Medicaid was just over $600 billion, of which the federal government contributed $375 billion and states an additional $230 billion.[4] States are not required to participate in the program, although all have since 1982. In general, Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens, and may include low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
So this program for the poor serves more people than the UK's NHS. (I'd be interested to know how the per capita Medicaid spending compares with that of the NHS.)
The US also subsidizes food for the poor through a program that once called food stamps, but is now the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program: "SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.[2][3] Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2] Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and declined through 2017 as the economy recovered.[2] It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans."
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
The US is a little different though: those homeless in San Francisco and Los Angeles, they aren't from there. (Or not disproportionately.)
Good treatment of the homeless in California draws them in from Kansas and Missouri.
Is that true? I had heard otherwise, and for instance this SF Standard article https://sfstandard.com/2023/05/22/san-francisco-homeless-people-from-the-city/ quotes research where a survey found "Seventy-one percent of those surveyed reported living in San Francisco, 24% in other California counties and 4% outside California [before becoming homeless].". Being homeless is bad enough without moving across the country away from any friends, family or acquaintances when it happens. You can argue that a self reported survey is not the most ideal rigorous data, but it does suggest that the "everybody moves to SF when they lose their home" idea isn't right.
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
There was a tent city in Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986.
Hmm. Was there? I was actually living very near to Lincoln's Inn Fields in 1986. I don't remember anything like a tent city as we see now in west coast USA. Some homeless? Yes, for sure, also on the Embankment and around the Strand
I think @dixiedean is right about LIF. I used it as an evening car park (free after 18:30, plenty of spaces) in the good old days. There was a mobile soup kitchen acting as a magnet for the homeless and they'd kip in the square until dawn, being relatively harmless and invisible. But the modern cheapo one-person tent didn't exist in those days: just a sleeping bag lined with the Evening Standard and a cardboard box if you were lucky.
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
"Why does the UK believe that “from the river to the sea” is hateful? Because @SuellaBraverman has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
the one thing I would say about Suella is that the tent policy is completely insane. It reinforces the impression that she doesn't have a clue about the real world and just makes policy up based on her prejudices.
It's not ENTIRELY insane. Or even insane. There is ample evidence from urban America that if you enable homelessness, and make it more tolerable - via things like tents, and generous welfare - then homelessness increases, and people will migrate to the most tent-giving and generous place, creating a cottage industry of homelessness, where homeless charities need evermore homeless to keep going, and justify their existence, and on you go, and eventually you get San Francisco
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
Ok so she is dreaming up policies based on youtube videos of tent cities in California and Oregon. Irrellevant to the English context where there is a housing shortage (doesn't exist on the whole in the USA) and a severe lack of temporary accommodation. That is largely why people end up in tents, not as a lifestyle choice.
Yes, I concur. "Lifestyle choice" might just about be arguable in the USA (many would disagree) it is surely not arguable in the UK, yet
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
The way to prevent tent cities is to make entry-level housing affordable and available. That almost certainly requires investment by the state, it certainly requires changes to make it easier to build houses and flats.
Meanwhile, my local free newspaper has as its headline: "Too Many Houses!" (planned for a local development site).
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
And others tax more, and have worse outcomes. And some tax less, and have better outcomes.
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
"Each year on Remembrance Sunday, we assemble at the Cenotaph to honour the sacrifice of the fallen and pay tribute to the servicemen & women we place in harm’s way.
Today - as every day - we will remember them. #LestWeForget"
Traumatic amnesia. I find it difficult to remember her. I was watching something about the Queen's death on YouTube and was slightly taken aback when Truss spoke outside No 10. I know she was PM, and I agree with @Luckyguy1983 that she had a consistent approach that addressed the issue (whilst disagreeing it would work in 2022/3), but other than the bald facts she begins to slip away. I remember she had an awkward manner and unfortunate voice, but other than that... um?
Immutable truths have not ceased to be so because it's 2022/3. Overtax and overregulate and economic activity will diminish. This was observed by Adam Smith, and was true long before him, and is true to this day.
Could you just tell me if Denmark, for example, is overtaxed and would that explain their descent into chaos often being assessed as the happiest place on earth to live?
Without much specific current knowledge, yes, but it wouldn't result in a descent into chaos, it would result in a more stagnant economical performance vs. a parallel Denmark with lower taxation.
You’ve zero evidence of that.
Where's your evidence for the notion that the Government can just take bigger and bigger chunks out of the productive economy and it will have no effect on the growth of the economy? Why do governments place taxes on things they want people to buy less of if your fanciful notion of the all-you-can-tax economy is true? At least my argument has some semblance of logic underpinning it.
My evidence would be that lots of countries tax more than us and have good levels of economic growth (as well as better public services and happier citizens).
My evidence is Denmark (or just about every other norther European country tbf).
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Day
(I forget who made that error.)
Can you imagine a government advised by Simon Case and containing Richard Burgon doing either of those? Spending it on cheap booze and backhanders for their mates, more like it.
And Sunak's worse.
But whilst she's a poor Home Secretary (and we've had some poor ones under Blair as well), in some ways I don't mind her staying in post a bit longer, if that just shows everyone why she should not be leader and makes sure she never us.. I'm not knocking any doors for her in 2029.
I just do.
(Well, 31st August, so less than three months.)
Got to let them rot first. Then squeeze out the brown goo. You then have to remove the stones. All very messy and you need a lot. I cooked mine up with Muscovado or Molasses and used it as a layer in the base of custard tarts. Taste of sticky toffee pudding. But there is a lot more you can do that I haven't tried yet. One I want to do is medlar jelly which I enjoy with cheese. Need to look up on internet as haven't tried to make that yet.
In many senses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark#Economy
And of course Novo Nordisk’s new GLP1 diet drug is going to result in a massive boost to GDP over the next few years.
https://news.sky.com/story/fa-council-member-apologises-after-claiming-hitler-would-be-proud-of-israels-prime-minister-13006505
FA Council member apologises after claiming 'Hitler would be proud of Israel's prime minister'
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/oekonomi/offentlig-oekonomi/skatter-og-afgifter
They just have a relatively high tax to GDP ration, which works fine for them.
It’s you who needs to produce evidence for your assertion.
That is what Braverman is aiming at. However, I agree her way of phrasing it has been tone-deaf and tin-eared, and she doesn't apparently understand that this American context is not understood by Brits
She needs to learn quick
I have read quite widely on this. I am fascinated by divergent American trends: a supposedly booming economy, yet with collapsing life expectancy, bad infant mortality, and so many other indicators flashing red. It is a mystery, and I love those
"In honor of our great veterans on Veteran's Day, we
pledge to you that we will root out the Communists,
Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like
vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal,
and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible,
whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the
American Dream. The threat from outside forces is far
less sinister, dangerous, and grave, than the threat
from within. Despite the hatred and anger of the
Radical Left Lunatics who want to destroy our Country,
we will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
(Retyped by me so E&OE.)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/105163827.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
She is as guilty of importing US culture wars as any Woke Warrior in Labour. Tsk
However we really do want to stop any tent cities from springing up in the UK. Once they are established, with an ecosystem of charities looking after them, they are extremely hard to eradicate without appearing utterly brutal and heartless. So there is an underlying logic to her words, but it is deeply underlying
France has similar issues with refugees on the Normandy Coast, waiting to cross to the UK. She might have been better pointing to that
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12738715/Radio-4-Nick-Robinsons-flippant-apology-row-Boriss-non-existent-gold-wallpaper-Tories-tell-record-straight-live-air.html?ico=related-replace
So it seems she's not the only one with a chequered relationship with the truth.
That implies she tells it sometimes.
In Paris meanwhile 100,000 march against anti-Semitism.
If the French can do it, so should we.
Whatever your views on Gaza, Israel, the West Bank etc, we should all be against anti-semitism, especially at a time when there has been a steep rise, in such attacks, our Jewish citizens are feeling scared and vulnerable in their home country and a month after a sadistic attack on very many Israelis and others.
But it's an interesting question. My guess is people who want to have babies will still have babies. It's a pretty built-in biological instinct for most. Most would probably choose doing their, uh, duty in the bedroom, over doing their civic duty at the ballot box.
You might see the reverse of the situation I describe above, with less money going to schools. Maybe the birth rate would decline if the cost of having children rose, e.g. the reimposition of VAT on children's clothes. As I think the cost of kids (via things like the cost of housing and daycare) is what reduces the birth rate now.
Again, civic minded people who cared about voting would move abroad, so you'd probably see fewer people and less tax take as a result.
Personally, I like the idea of disenfranchising everyone who doesn't do at least a month's worth of volunteer work in every five year electoral cycle.
. I just think 'banning tents' is an odd message to send out when there is a massive homelessness problem they created and cannot solve. Do they really think that they can blame the homeless people themselves?
London is getting worse by the day for Jewish people and it has to stop.
Let's make this vile woman famous."
https://x.com/addicted2newz/status/1723799689215070266?s=20
We have to come down extremely hard on this. Now
must be a shoe-in for Home Secretary in tomorrow’s reshuffle, if not the top job.
Was it large? Perhaps not.
Was it there? Definitely.
Steinbeck had something to report about West Coast homelessness 90 years ago. It isn't new.
But. The question remains. If you don't want folk living in tents, then where will they live?
Simply taking away their tent isn't an answer.
@SuellaBraverman
has a Jewish husband, er, a Zionist husband… Honestly this wouldn’t have been out of place in Germany in a certain period"
https://x.com/JakeWSimons/status/1723805885590319463?s=20
Where do you live?
Good treatment of the homeless in California draws them in from Kansas and Missouri.
How does UK's DWP policies encourage people to live in a tent?
Tax revenues % GDP
GDP per Capita
Source World Bank https://databank.worldbank.org
Bill Kristol @BillKristol
·
19h
Reads better in the original German.
"Miami, FL - "Hitler should have f*cking finished the job, he knew what the f*ck he was doing."
This woman is a MOTHER.
Walking WITH her children in tow.
Recognize her? DM us."
A tidal wave of this shit
https://x.com/StopAntisemites/status/1723767763112525851?s=20
It will be Biden vs Trump and it will be democracy vs fascism.
This is the election of our lifetimes folks.
Belt up.
"Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States, providing free health insurance to 85 million low-income and disabled people as of 2022;[3] in 2019, the program paid for half of all U.S. births.[4] As of 2017, the total annual cost of Medicaid was just over $600 billion, of which the federal government contributed $375 billion and states an additional $230 billion.[4] States are not required to participate in the program, although all have since 1982. In general, Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or qualified non-citizens, and may include low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
So this program for the poor serves more people than the UK's NHS. (I'd be interested to know how the per capita Medicaid spending compares with that of the NHS.)
The US also subsidizes food for the poor through a program that once called food stamps, but is now the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program:
"SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018, at an expenditure of $57.1 billion.[2][3] Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2] Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and declined through 2017 as the economy recovered.[2] It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans."
SNAP is popular now, and has always been. (Though medical experts have begun to worry that it contributes to our obesity problem.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program
Meanwhile, my local free newspaper has as its headline: "Too Many Houses!" (planned for a local development site).
Do, I think things would work better if I gave more of what I earn to the current government, Mark Drakeford, and Humza Youssaf?
No.
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/palestine-flags-flown-as-labour-conference-backs-ethical-foreign-policy-motion/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/11/12/celtic-fans-boo-minute-silence-remembrance-sunday/