Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
A bus fare cap is of no use to people whose bus service has been withdrawn.
It’s fair enough to say what he did to the Telegraph; she did effect change, although he was praising her by saying the bit about unleashing the nations entrepreneurialism.
Thing is, it’s like when Farage said Putin was a good political operator; the centrists will just ignore any nuance and take what he said at face value…. Wont they?
If I was Sunak (Thank God, I am not), my strategy would be to run as long as GE election campaign as possible so there would be more pressure on SKS to explain exactly what he would do in Government. My guess is both he and Reeves would collapse under relentless questioning.
The particular kitchen cabinet you opened tonight had the strong medicinal stuff in?
Not really. It had some stuff labelled ‘Starmer’ - it didn’t tell me what it would do or what would be the reaction, just ‘trust me and swallow’
The mouldy blue ones that stink of death and seem to have different bad effects every week are even more unclear in purpose.
The idea that a Starmer campaign will collapse anytime before the Tory campaign and policy programme has long since reduced to a puddle of sick on the floor seems hopelessly optimistic.
Rather hubristic. Look at the past three years - big Tory leads, then big swings to Labour. The electorate is not thinking about the election now. They will when a gun is put to their head and they are forced to make a choice.
This poll suggests otherwise:
Would the British public support or oppose the UK Government calling a General Election in the next six months? (26 November)
Mmmmm, I don’t know the population of the country but I know the c 100 people I speak to in an affluent part of London are not really concentrating on the election - it’s next year, people are definitely anti Tory but they don’t (generally) trust Starmer. I’ve also had a lot of friends with kids in private school day they are mortified with the Labour VAT policy on schools - sure only 7% of kids go to private school but their parents are fired up if my conversations are a guide.
Right. So its weighted sample of the population canvassed by a leading member of the British Polling Council verses your perception of your mates’ attitudes? That’s me convinced. And I’m equally sure the “fired up” private school parents will swing things because, as we know, fired up votes count double - like away goals.
I didn’t exactly claim that it was weighted by the British Polling Council, did I? I said - clearly - it was anecdotal. Not sure why you therefore think of the need to start claiming I’d quoted an independent, accredited polling organisation…..
My point is the exact opposite. It the fact that you’re not so accredited that was the basis of my sarcasm, As you will see if you read the post properly.
Fair enough but to use your football analogy 1-1. You didn’t read my post properly when you stated I said X was performing strongly in ad revenues.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
We've got a new bus to Heathrow. It's now £2 from Basingstoke to Frimley, where it changes route number, then £2 to Heathrow via Camberley and Bagshot.
Did anyone else watch the Coventry vs Birmingham game on sky? Wayne Rooney is such an awful football manager he makes Gerrard and Lampard look like Arteta and Pep Guardiola. Coventry could have easily won 4 or 5 nil tonight. He's had just one win in his 9 games and taken 5 points from them.
It is very interesting but maybe more interesting is that a FT, fairly left wing journalist still wants to use X despite EM’s comments. So much for the boycott…
The boycott is paying advertisers, not users.
Advertisers follow users. Yes, big advertisers say they are boycotting X but they said the same about Meta, YouTube etc - and those companies still published strong numbers.
Strong numbers? It’s estimated that X will bring in $1.89 billion in advertising revenue this year, down 54% from 2022. Monthly users are down 15% since he bought the platform. He’s fucked it.
Read my post. I said Meta and YouTube posted strong ad numbers recently, Meta in particular. Did I say X posted strong ad numbers?
Advertisers have never boycotted Alphabet or Meta in anything like the volume they have TwiX. Helps that they have decent ad offerings; Twitter has been lagging for years and now has the added bonus of being a den of fraud and fash and has an owner whose approach to generating business is to tell his prospective customers to ‘go f*ck themselves’.
It’s very easy to drop from your media mix, as an advertiser - the other two are not.
It is very interesting but maybe more interesting is that a FT, fairly left wing journalist still wants to use X despite EM’s comments. So much for the boycott…
The boycott is paying advertisers, not users.
Advertisers follow users.
Strong numbers? It’s estimated that X will bring in $1.89 billion in advertising revenue this year, down 54% from 2022. Monthly users are down 15% since he bought the platform. He’s fucked it.
Read my post. I said Meta and YouTube posted strong ad numbers recently, Meta in particular. Did I say X posted strong ad numbers?
You said -
Yes, big advertisers say they are boycotting X but they said the same about Meta, YouTube etc - and those companies still published strong numbers.
You drew a direct comparison between the numbers posted by Meta and YouTube suggesting that X could follow the same path. I quoted numbers showing the opposite.
It’s fair enough to say what he did to the Telegraph; she did effect change, although he was praising her by saying the bit about unleashing the nations entrepreneurialism.
Thing is, it’s like when Farage said Putin was a good political operator; the centrists will just ignore any nuance and take what he said at face value…. Wont they?
If I was Sunak (Thank God, I am not), my strategy would be to run as long as GE election campaign as possible so there would be more pressure on SKS to explain exactly what he would do in Government. My guess is both he and Reeves would collapse under relentless questioning.
The particular kitchen cabinet you opened tonight had the strong medicinal stuff in?
Not really. It had some stuff labelled ‘Starmer’ - it didn’t tell me what it would do or what would be the reaction, just ‘trust me and swallow’
The mouldy blue ones that stink of death and seem to have different bad effects every week are even more unclear in purpose.
The idea that a Starmer campaign will collapse anytime before the Tory campaign and policy programme has long since reduced to a puddle of sick on the floor seems hopelessly optimistic.
Rather hubristic. Look at the past three years - big Tory leads, then big swings to Labour. The electorate is not thinking about the election now. They will when a gun is put to their head and they are forced to make a choice.
This poll suggests otherwise:
Would the British public support or oppose the UK Government calling a General Election in the next six months? (26 November)
Mmmmm, I don’t know the population of the country but I know the c 100 people I speak to in an affluent part of London are not really concentrating on the election - it’s next year, people are definitely anti Tory but they don’t (generally) trust Starmer. I’ve also had a lot of friends with kids in private school day they are mortified with the Labour VAT policy on schools - sure only 7% of kids go to private school but their parents are fired up if my conversations are a guide.
Makes more sense now. The "affluent part of London" won't decide this election. What do you estimate the prior voting record of parents of private school children to be? They may well be "fired up". But voting Tory just like they did last time is a net gain of 0.
It’s fair enough to say what he did to the Telegraph; she did effect change, although he was praising her by saying the bit about unleashing the nations entrepreneurialism.
Thing is, it’s like when Farage said Putin was a good political operator; the centrists will just ignore any nuance and take what he said at face value…. Wont they?
If I was Sunak (Thank God, I am not), my strategy would be to run as long as GE election campaign as possible so there would be more pressure on SKS to explain exactly what he would do in Government. My guess is both he and Reeves would collapse under relentless questioning.
The particular kitchen cabinet you opened tonight had the strong medicinal stuff in?
Not really. It had some stuff labelled ‘Starmer’ - it didn’t tell me what it would do or what would be the reaction, just ‘trust me and swallow’
The mouldy blue ones that stink of death and seem to have different bad effects every week are even more unclear in purpose.
The idea that a Starmer campaign will collapse anytime before the Tory campaign and policy programme has long since reduced to a puddle of sick on the floor seems hopelessly optimistic.
Rather hubristic. Look at the past three years - big Tory leads, then big swings to Labour. The electorate is not thinking about the election now. They will when a gun is put to their head and they are forced to make a choice.
This poll suggests otherwise:
Would the British public support or oppose the UK Government calling a General Election in the next six months? (26 November)
Mmmmm, I don’t know the population of the country but I know the c 100 people I speak to in an affluent part of London are not really concentrating on the election - it’s next year, people are definitely anti Tory but they don’t (generally) trust Starmer. I’ve also had a lot of friends with kids in private school day they are mortified with the Labour VAT policy on schools - sure only 7% of kids go to private school but their parents are fired up if my conversations are a guide.
Right. So its weighted sample of the population canvassed by a leading member of the British Polling Council verses your perception of your mates’ attitudes? That’s me convinced. And I’m equally sure the “fired up” private school parents will swing things because, as we know, fired up votes count double - like away goals.
I didn’t exactly claim that it was weighted by the British Polling Council, did I? I said - clearly - it was anecdotal. Not sure why you therefore think of the need to start claiming I’d quoted an independent, accredited polling organisation…..
My point is the exact opposite. It the fact that you’re not so accredited that was the basis of my sarcasm, As you will see if you read the post properly.
Fair enough but to use your football analogy 1-1. You didn’t read my post properly when you stated I said X was performing strongly in ad revenues.
No. 2-0. Read my post again. And the reply. Maybe speak to someone to help you comprehend.
It’s fair enough to say what he did to the Telegraph; she did effect change, although he was praising her by saying the bit about unleashing the nations entrepreneurialism.
Thing is, it’s like when Farage said Putin was a good political operator; the centrists will just ignore any nuance and take what he said at face value…. Wont they?
If I was Sunak (Thank God, I am not), my strategy would be to run as long as GE election campaign as possible so there would be more pressure on SKS to explain exactly what he would do in Government. My guess is both he and Reeves would collapse under relentless questioning.
There is a rather big difference between admitting Thatcher was an effective politician and saying Putin is. All but the most conspiratorial on the far left or right about election results have to admit that. Even if you think there's much wrong in what she did, which we are still paying the price for - you have to admit she won elections while putting through some fairly radical changes.
In many ways, the more wrong you think those changes are, the more interested you should be in how she achieved that. Not least so you can reverse the bits you think are bad while keeping those who think they benefited from them onside.
Saying Putin is an "effective political operator" on the otherhand, is a bit like saying Stalin was. Or Ayatollah Khameini is. They are effective in the sense that they kill, torture, and repress opposition, as well as utilising corruption on a spectacular scale. They are "effective" in the sense they do things abroad that are tantamount to warfare - and would be seen as such were Western governments not determined to avoid direct war.
That's the difference.
Unfortunately, I do consider that Stalin was a statesman of the highest calibre (Putin is not).
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
A bus fare cap is of no use to people whose bus service has been withdrawn.
No bus comes within 2 miles of our village. There was a service but it was cancelled 10 years ago.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Did anyone else watch the Coventry vs Birmingham game on sky? Wayne Rooney is such an awful football manager he makes Gerrard and Lampard look like Arteta and Pep Guardiola. Coventry could have easily won 4 or 5 nil tonight. He's had just one win in his 9 games and taken 5 points from them.
I’m amazed, at the age of 42 now, that football clubs *still* go for employing ex big name players as their managers regardless of their experience or capability. It was daft 30 years ago, and is even dafter today.
What about Wayne Rooney makes you think, now there’s a fella who can run a football team?
He was a cracking player; one of the best forwards this country has ever produced. That has very little bearing on how good he will be managing in the second and third tiers of football.
Some great players have gone on to become great managers (Pep was bloody decent, for example) but by and large the great managers tend to have been solid at best, and some barely played at all.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Yes. It's a total sign that they are utterly out of touch. Headed on the piss in the Toon for Xmas do. Colleagues all booking taxis at £10 a head each way. Me. I'm on the bus. Not a single one of them knew it was £2.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
A bus fare cap is of no use to people whose bus service has been withdrawn.
No bus comes within 2 miles of our village. There was a service but it was cancelled 10 years ago.
It’s fair enough to say what he did to the Telegraph; she did effect change, although he was praising her by saying the bit about unleashing the nations entrepreneurialism.
Thing is, it’s like when Farage said Putin was a good political operator; the centrists will just ignore any nuance and take what he said at face value…. Wont they?
If I was Sunak (Thank God, I am not), my strategy would be to run as long as GE election campaign as possible so there would be more pressure on SKS to explain exactly what he would do in Government. My guess is both he and Reeves would collapse under relentless questioning.
The particular kitchen cabinet you opened tonight had the strong medicinal stuff in?
Not really. It had some stuff labelled ‘Starmer’ - it didn’t tell me what it would do or what would be the reaction, just ‘trust me and swallow’
The mouldy blue ones that stink of death and seem to have different bad effects every week are even more unclear in purpose.
The idea that a Starmer campaign will collapse anytime before the Tory campaign and policy programme has long since reduced to a puddle of sick on the floor seems hopelessly optimistic.
Rather hubristic. Look at the past three years - big Tory leads, then big swings to Labour. The electorate is not thinking about the election now. They will when a gun is put to their head and they are forced to make a choice.
This poll suggests otherwise:
Would the British public support or oppose the UK Government calling a General Election in the next six months? (26 November)
Mmmmm, I don’t know the population of the country but I know the c 100 people I speak to in an affluent part of London are not really concentrating on the election - it’s next year, people are definitely anti Tory but they don’t (generally) trust Starmer. I’ve also had a lot of friends with kids in private school day they are mortified with the Labour VAT policy on schools - sure only 7% of kids go to private school but their parents are fired up if my conversations are a guide.
Right. So its weighted sample of the population canvassed by a leading member of the British Polling Council verses your perception of your mates’ attitudes? That’s me convinced. And I’m equally sure the “fired up” private school parents will swing things because, as we know, fired up votes count double - like away goals.
I didn’t exactly claim that it was weighted by the British Polling Council, did I? I said - clearly - it was anecdotal. Not sure why you therefore think of the need to start claiming I’d quoted an independent, accredited polling organisation…..
My point is the exact opposite. It the fact that you’re not so accredited that was the basis of my sarcasm, As you will see if you read the post properly.
Fair enough but to use your football analogy 1-1. You didn’t read my post properly when you stated I said X was performing strongly in ad revenues.
No. 2-0. Read my post again. And the reply. Maybe speak to someone to help you comprehend.
No, 1-1. For a lawyer, you don’t seem to do detail.
Your post stated I said X was making strong ad revenues. I stated it didn’t and that the comment referred to previous ad boycotts of Meta and YouTube where advertisers had said the same and yet they reposted strong numbers.
If you want to act superior / take the piss, get your facts right. you misread my post and now you are getting all lawyerly about it.
Did anyone else watch the Coventry vs Birmingham game on sky? Wayne Rooney is such an awful football manager he makes Gerrard and Lampard look like Arteta and Pep Guardiola. Coventry could have easily won 4 or 5 nil tonight. He's had just one win in his 9 games and taken 5 points from them.
I’m amazed, at the age of 42 now, that football clubs *still* go for employing ex big name players as their managers regardless of their experience or capability. It was daft 30 years ago, and is even dafter today.
What about Wayne Rooney makes you think, now there’s a fella who can run a football team?
He was a cracking player; one of the best forwards this country has ever produced. That has very little bearing on how good he will be managing in the second and third tiers of football.
Some great players have gone on to become great managers (Pep was bloody decent, for example) but by and large the great managers tend to have been solid at best, and some barely played at all.
It's all changed though, hasn't it? 50 years ago there was no science or training in it. But even then, a player of the stature of Brian Clough started at Hartlepool. Shankly managed Carlisle, Grimsby and Workington. The modern multi millionaire just won't start there. And isn't prepared to go to Indonesia or somewhere to prove themselves.
It’s fair enough to say what he did to the Telegraph; she did effect change, although he was praising her by saying the bit about unleashing the nations entrepreneurialism.
Thing is, it’s like when Farage said Putin was a good political operator; the centrists will just ignore any nuance and take what he said at face value…. Wont they?
If I was Sunak (Thank God, I am not), my strategy would be to run as long as GE election campaign as possible so there would be more pressure on SKS to explain exactly what he would do in Government. My guess is both he and Reeves would collapse under relentless questioning.
There is a rather big difference between admitting Thatcher was an effective politician and saying Putin is. All but the most conspiratorial on the far left or right about election results have to admit that. Even if you think there's much wrong in what she did, which we are still paying the price for - you have to admit she won elections while putting through some fairly radical changes.
In many ways, the more wrong you think those changes are, the more interested you should be in how she achieved that. Not least so you can reverse the bits you think are bad while keeping those who think they benefited from them onside.
Saying Putin is an "effective political operator" on the otherhand, is a bit like saying Stalin was. Or Ayatollah Khameini is. They are effective in the sense that they kill, torture, and repress opposition, as well as utilising corruption on a spectacular scale. They are "effective" in the sense they do things abroad that are tantamount to warfare - and would be seen as such were Western governments not determined to avoid direct war.
That's the difference.
Unfortunately, I do consider that Stalin was a statesman of the highest calibre (Putin is not).
He was undeniably evil, however.
Putin is worth understanding though because how he did it, quite how far he went in creating illusion of a pluralistic society does differ from the dictatorial efforts of the past in this respect and has fed Western performative politicking in a real way. The sentence - the more wrong you think he is, the more interested you should be in how he achieved that - does seem apt.
Did anyone else watch the Coventry vs Birmingham game on sky? Wayne Rooney is such an awful football manager he makes Gerrard and Lampard look like Arteta and Pep Guardiola. Coventry could have easily won 4 or 5 nil tonight. He's had just one win in his 9 games and taken 5 points from them.
I’m amazed, at the age of 42 now, that football clubs *still* go for employing ex big name players as their managers regardless of their experience or capability. It was daft 30 years ago, and is even dafter today.
What about Wayne Rooney makes you think, now there’s a fella who can run a football team?
He was a cracking player; one of the best forwards this country has ever produced. That has very little bearing on how good he will be managing in the second and third tiers of football.
Some great players have gone on to become great managers (Pep was bloody decent, for example) but by and large the great managers tend to have been solid at best, and some barely played at all.
He did OK at Derby to be fair with no resources - but it was very much a backs-to-the-wall, blood, thunder, and grit job. Might be an OK manager in time at a lower level. But it was a very odd appointment by American owners wanting a big name when other less famous names with real pedigree in the Championship were available.
What he really needs is a low-pressure League One job where he has some money to spend (but not so much it makes promotion a must) to work at it and develop tactically. Though whether he wants or needs that is another question. And whether that kind of club - with little fuss or dysfunction - needs or would want him, is yet another.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
A bus fare cap is of no use to people whose bus service has been withdrawn.
No bus comes within 2 miles of our village. There was a service but it was cancelled 10 years ago.
Ah but it was replaced by The Big Society.
Can I point out that the £2 fare cap was actually a TfGM wheeze which tge government copied? (No shame in copying a good idea, of course.) Burnham should really be the politician who gets the credit. Though credit also to central government for a) its bus strategy, which gave policy space and funding for TfGMs fare cap, and b) recognising a good idea and rolling it out. See also GM's bus franchising model, which I think is also being rolled out across tge country, which might see BenPointer's village get its bus service back. Boris was personally pretty invested in the bus strategy, I think. The introduction to it is a connosieur's example of Borisese.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Did anyone else watch the Coventry vs Birmingham game on sky? Wayne Rooney is such an awful football manager he makes Gerrard and Lampard look like Arteta and Pep Guardiola. Coventry could have easily won 4 or 5 nil tonight. He's had just one win in his 9 games and taken 5 points from them.
I’m amazed, at the age of 42 now, that football clubs *still* go for employing ex big name players as their managers regardless of their experience or capability. It was daft 30 years ago, and is even dafter today.
What about Wayne Rooney makes you think, now there’s a fella who can run a football team?
He was a cracking player; one of the best forwards this country has ever produced. That has very little bearing on how good he will be managing in the second and third tiers of football.
Some great players have gone on to become great managers (Pep was bloody decent, for example) but by and large the great managers tend to have been solid at best, and some barely played at all.
He did OK at Derby to be fair with no resources - but it was very much a backs-to-the-wall, blood, thunder, and grit job. Might be an OK manager in time at a lower level. But it was a very odd appointment by American owners wanting a big name when other less famous names with real pedigree in the Championship were available.
What he really needs is a low-pressure League One job where he has some money to spend (but not so much it makes promotion a must) to work at it and develop tactically. Though whether he wants or needs that is another question. And whether that kind of club - with little fuss or dysfunction - needs or would want him, is yet another.
Will anyone even in League One want Rooney after he's done at Birmingham? Gianfranco Zola had a similar torrid time at the club (having, just like Rooney, replaced a manager who was doing a solid though not spectacular job) six years ago and hasn't managed anyone since. I suspect Rooney will be working as a pundit in 18 months time.
delusion after delusion. this isn't 'bad spads/process', it's a PM full on living in a parallel world - he cannot accept he was wrong when he was told explicitly & repeatedly 'your policy cannot & won't work & it's a political disaster' - he's now pretending he's 'blocking' the courts when he very obviously is not & his policy/Bill very obviously leaves the ECHR/HRA framework in control
he's so monumentally botched it he is BOTH *in breach of ECHR* AND leaving the ECHR *in actual control*! and BOTH roused the dominant Left network to smash him AND isn't seriously trying to solve the problem! so 100% on brand for establishment Tories, 'the grownups' as the IfG calls them
he will not 'stop the boats', it's already game over for the fake rwanda gimmick & the PM has wasted 2022 & left himself no time
there will be a useless attempt in 2024 to claim he's been 'sabotaged' by Lords/courts & 'this is what the election is about', they'll pathetically try to use Take Back Control, but it won't work
tories doomed if they keep him & doomed if they spasm & fire him
He does get quite intense, Dom, doesn't he. It's like he's living in a world bounded by UnHerd polemics rather than the earth and sky.
My tip for Sunak would be to stop appearing at lecterns imprinted with Stop The Boats! It just looks ineffably naff. He's our PM ffs.
There's some perfectly good writing on unherd. Cummings is just best ignored.
There is. But it mainly seems to be about a created-for-polemic world rather than this one I'm living in.
Of course there is, it's bankrolled by the same guy who funds GB News and Legatum. There is money being spent in furtherance of an agenda. The creation of alternate realities.
Ah ok. Yes it shows. It works too. If you don't occasionally come up for air and give yourself a slap you might end up buying into some of the 'takes'. What particularly irritates is seeing self-proclaimed lefties writing on there. Presenting as 'free thinkers' but in reality just paying the rent. No crime but ... well as I say it irritates.
Nice to see some of our left wing posters showing their true colours when it comes to freedom of thought and speech.
He was criticising something he read. He merely said it “irritates”. Like so many on the right you conflate criticism with an attempt to silence. That way bad things lie.
Not really. Kinabalu regularly attacks the right to freedom of speech. Indeed we had a disagreement about it only a few days ago. I read his comments in that context.
Hmm touch of cross purposes. My bugbear is hyperbolic commentary about freedom of speech in the UK being under mortal threat not freedom of speech itself. On that my view is we have it about right. Free speech but with the exceptions as per our laws.
delusion after delusion. this isn't 'bad spads/process', it's a PM full on living in a parallel world - he cannot accept he was wrong when he was told explicitly & repeatedly 'your policy cannot & won't work & it's a political disaster' - he's now pretending he's 'blocking' the courts when he very obviously is not & his policy/Bill very obviously leaves the ECHR/HRA framework in control
he's so monumentally botched it he is BOTH *in breach of ECHR* AND leaving the ECHR *in actual control*! and BOTH roused the dominant Left network to smash him AND isn't seriously trying to solve the problem! so 100% on brand for establishment Tories, 'the grownups' as the IfG calls them
he will not 'stop the boats', it's already game over for the fake rwanda gimmick & the PM has wasted 2022 & left himself no time
there will be a useless attempt in 2024 to claim he's been 'sabotaged' by Lords/courts & 'this is what the election is about', they'll pathetically try to use Take Back Control, but it won't work
tories doomed if they keep him & doomed if they spasm & fire him
He does get quite intense, Dom, doesn't he. It's like he's living in a world bounded by UnHerd polemics rather than the earth and sky.
My tip for Sunak would be to stop appearing at lecterns imprinted with Stop The Boats! It just looks ineffably naff. He's our PM ffs.
There's some perfectly good writing on unherd. Cummings is just best ignored.
There is. But it mainly seems to be about a created-for-polemic world rather than this one I'm living in.
Of course there is, it's bankrolled by the same guy who funds GB News and Legatum. There is money being spent in furtherance of an agenda. The creation of alternate realities.
Ah ok. Yes it shows. It works too. If you don't occasionally come up for air and give yourself a slap you might end up buying into some of the 'takes'. What particularly irritates is seeing self-proclaimed lefties writing on there. Presenting as 'free thinkers' but in reality just paying the rent. No crime but ... well as I say it irritates.
Nice to see some of our left wing posters showing their true colours when it comes to freedom of thought and speech.
He was criticising something he read. He merely said it “irritates”. Like so many on the right you conflate criticism with an attempt to silence. That way bad things lie.
Not really. Kinabalu regularly attacks the right to freedom of speech. Indeed we had a disagreement about it only a few days ago. I read his comments in that context.
Hmm touch of cross purposes. My bugbear is hyperbolic commentary about freedom of speech in the UK being under mortal threat not freedom of speech itself. On that my view is we have it about right. Free speech but with the exceptions as per our laws.
And I disagree with you. Our current laws are far too restrictive as regards free speech and much of them should be repealed. So I still contend that you do not actually agree with free speech, rather with speech you agree with.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
delusion after delusion. this isn't 'bad spads/process', it's a PM full on living in a parallel world - he cannot accept he was wrong when he was told explicitly & repeatedly 'your policy cannot & won't work & it's a political disaster' - he's now pretending he's 'blocking' the courts when he very obviously is not & his policy/Bill very obviously leaves the ECHR/HRA framework in control
he's so monumentally botched it he is BOTH *in breach of ECHR* AND leaving the ECHR *in actual control*! and BOTH roused the dominant Left network to smash him AND isn't seriously trying to solve the problem! so 100% on brand for establishment Tories, 'the grownups' as the IfG calls them
he will not 'stop the boats', it's already game over for the fake rwanda gimmick & the PM has wasted 2022 & left himself no time
there will be a useless attempt in 2024 to claim he's been 'sabotaged' by Lords/courts & 'this is what the election is about', they'll pathetically try to use Take Back Control, but it won't work
tories doomed if they keep him & doomed if they spasm & fire him
He does get quite intense, Dom, doesn't he. It's like he's living in a world bounded by UnHerd polemics rather than the earth and sky.
My tip for Sunak would be to stop appearing at lecterns imprinted with Stop The Boats! It just looks ineffably naff. He's our PM ffs.
There's some perfectly good writing on unherd. Cummings is just best ignored.
There is. But it mainly seems to be about a created-for-polemic world rather than this one I'm living in.
Of course there is, it's bankrolled by the same guy who funds GB News and Legatum. There is money being spent in furtherance of an agenda. The creation of alternate realities.
Ah ok. Yes it shows. It works too. If you don't occasionally come up for air and give yourself a slap you might end up buying into some of the 'takes'. What particularly irritates is seeing self-proclaimed lefties writing on there. Presenting as 'free thinkers' but in reality just paying the rent. No crime but ... well as I say it irritates.
Nice to see some of our left wing posters showing their true colours when it comes to freedom of thought and speech.
He was criticising something he read. He merely said it “irritates”. Like so many on the right you conflate criticism with an attempt to silence. That way bad things lie.
Not really. Kinabalu regularly attacks the right to freedom of speech. Indeed we had a disagreement about it only a few days ago. I read his comments in that context.
Hmm touch of cross purposes. My bugbear is hyperbolic commentary about freedom of speech in the UK being under mortal threat not freedom of speech itself. On that my view is we have it about right. Free speech but with the exceptions as per our laws.
And I disagree with you. Our current laws are far too restrictive as regards free speech and much of them shoudl be repealed. So I still contend that you do not actually agree with free speech, rather with speech you agree with.
Not at all. There's tons of things I hear that I dislike or disagree with but only a very tiny fraction of it would I wish to be illegal. And that tiny fraction is pretty much the stuff that is illegal.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
Probably. I assume it's because they, er, assume, that the public overestimates how many come by what route, and so even though stopping the boats would not make as big a dent in the figures as the public may think, it looks tougher and thus more 'effective', and that would therefore be popular even if the overall number remains higher than the public say they want it to be.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You think Farage is going to win I'm a Celeb? Your vote only counts one, you know.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You think Farage is going to win I'm a Celeb? Your vote only counts one, you know.
He’s probably not going to win it, the favourite is odds on. I just wanted to see who’d bite
I haven’t voted, although I did watch it tonight - he didn’t seem that overjoyed to see his daughter and is blatantly looking for airtime. Did win his challenges though, ate some fish eyes with the bloke from JLS
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
A bus fare cap is of no use to people whose bus service has been withdrawn.
No bus comes within 2 miles of our village. There was a service but it was cancelled 10 years ago.
Rejoice!
In some way.
While you walk to the next village. Who voted in the correct way.
delusion after delusion. this isn't 'bad spads/process', it's a PM full on living in a parallel world - he cannot accept he was wrong when he was told explicitly & repeatedly 'your policy cannot & won't work & it's a political disaster' - he's now pretending he's 'blocking' the courts when he very obviously is not & his policy/Bill very obviously leaves the ECHR/HRA framework in control
he's so monumentally botched it he is BOTH *in breach of ECHR* AND leaving the ECHR *in actual control*! and BOTH roused the dominant Left network to smash him AND isn't seriously trying to solve the problem! so 100% on brand for establishment Tories, 'the grownups' as the IfG calls them
he will not 'stop the boats', it's already game over for the fake rwanda gimmick & the PM has wasted 2022 & left himself no time
there will be a useless attempt in 2024 to claim he's been 'sabotaged' by Lords/courts & 'this is what the election is about', they'll pathetically try to use Take Back Control, but it won't work
tories doomed if they keep him & doomed if they spasm & fire him
He does get quite intense, Dom, doesn't he. It's like he's living in a world bounded by UnHerd polemics rather than the earth and sky.
My tip for Sunak would be to stop appearing at lecterns imprinted with Stop The Boats! It just looks ineffably naff. He's our PM ffs.
There's some perfectly good writing on unherd. Cummings is just best ignored.
There is. But it mainly seems to be about a created-for-polemic world rather than this one I'm living in.
Of course there is, it's bankrolled by the same guy who funds GB News and Legatum. There is money being spent in furtherance of an agenda. The creation of alternate realities.
Ah ok. Yes it shows. It works too. If you don't occasionally come up for air and give yourself a slap you might end up buying into some of the 'takes'. What particularly irritates is seeing self-proclaimed lefties writing on there. Presenting as 'free thinkers' but in reality just paying the rent. No crime but ... well as I say it irritates.
Nice to see some of our left wing posters showing their true colours when it comes to freedom of thought and speech.
He was criticising something he read. He merely said it “irritates”. Like so many on the right you conflate criticism with an attempt to silence. That way bad things lie.
Not really. Kinabalu regularly attacks the right to freedom of speech. Indeed we had a disagreement about it only a few days ago. I read his comments in that context.
Hmm touch of cross purposes. My bugbear is hyperbolic commentary about freedom of speech in the UK being under mortal threat not freedom of speech itself. On that my view is we have it about right. Free speech but with the exceptions as per our laws.
And I disagree with you. Our current laws are far too restrictive as regards free speech and much of them shoudl be repealed. So I still contend that you do not actually agree with free speech, rather with speech you agree with.
Not at all. There's tons of things I hear that I dislike or disagree with but only a very tiny fraction of it would I wish to be illegal. And that tiny fraction is pretty much the stuff that is illegal.
Again that is why I disagree with you. Much of what is currently illegal should not be. We should not have effective blasphemy laws. We should not use the law to protect people from hurt feelings or offense. The laws constraining speech should be restricted to endangerment and incitement. Anything libelous or defamatory should be covered by the relevant civil laws but even there the scope should be much reduced.
delusion after delusion. this isn't 'bad spads/process', it's a PM full on living in a parallel world - he cannot accept he was wrong when he was told explicitly & repeatedly 'your policy cannot & won't work & it's a political disaster' - he's now pretending he's 'blocking' the courts when he very obviously is not & his policy/Bill very obviously leaves the ECHR/HRA framework in control
he's so monumentally botched it he is BOTH *in breach of ECHR* AND leaving the ECHR *in actual control*! and BOTH roused the dominant Left network to smash him AND isn't seriously trying to solve the problem! so 100% on brand for establishment Tories, 'the grownups' as the IfG calls them
he will not 'stop the boats', it's already game over for the fake rwanda gimmick & the PM has wasted 2022 & left himself no time
there will be a useless attempt in 2024 to claim he's been 'sabotaged' by Lords/courts & 'this is what the election is about', they'll pathetically try to use Take Back Control, but it won't work
tories doomed if they keep him & doomed if they spasm & fire him
He does get quite intense, Dom, doesn't he. It's like he's living in a world bounded by UnHerd polemics rather than the earth and sky.
My tip for Sunak would be to stop appearing at lecterns imprinted with Stop The Boats! It just looks ineffably naff. He's our PM ffs.
There's some perfectly good writing on unherd. Cummings is just best ignored.
There is. But it mainly seems to be about a created-for-polemic world rather than this one I'm living in.
Of course there is, it's bankrolled by the same guy who funds GB News and Legatum. There is money being spent in furtherance of an agenda. The creation of alternate realities.
Ah ok. Yes it shows. It works too. If you don't occasionally come up for air and give yourself a slap you might end up buying into some of the 'takes'. What particularly irritates is seeing self-proclaimed lefties writing on there. Presenting as 'free thinkers' but in reality just paying the rent. No crime but ... well as I say it irritates.
Nice to see some of our left wing posters showing their true colours when it comes to freedom of thought and speech.
He was criticising something he read. He merely said it “irritates”. Like so many on the right you conflate criticism with an attempt to silence. That way bad things lie.
Not really. Kinabalu regularly attacks the right to freedom of speech. Indeed we had a disagreement about it only a few days ago. I read his comments in that context.
Hmm touch of cross purposes. My bugbear is hyperbolic commentary about freedom of speech in the UK being under mortal threat not freedom of speech itself. On that my view is we have it about right. Free speech but with the exceptions as per our laws.
And I disagree with you. Our current laws are far too restrictive as regards free speech and much of them shoudl be repealed. So I still contend that you do not actually agree with free speech, rather with speech you agree with.
Not at all. There's tons of things I hear that I dislike or disagree with but only a very tiny fraction of it would I wish to be illegal. And that tiny fraction is pretty much the stuff that is illegal.
Again that is why I disagree with you. Much of what is currently illegal should not be. We should not have effective blasphemy laws. We should not use the law to protect people from hurt feelings or offense. The laws constraining speech should be restricted to endangerment and incitement. Anything libelous or defamatory should be covered by the relevant civil laws but even there the scope should be much reduced.
On free speech I'm very much a 'better to risk too much than too little' person. It's very easy, and would probably be popular, to be more restrictive, which is why its better to be over vigilant than under.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
Probably. I assume it's because they, er, assume, that the public overestimates how many come by what route, and so even though stopping the boats would not make as big a dent in the figures as the public may think, it looks tougher and thus more 'effective', and that would therefore be popular even if the overall number remains higher than the public say they want it to be.
It's also because they almost certainly know significantly reducing legal migration would put a large hole in their economic figures and put huge pressure in the short term on public services. But can't admit that as it would undermine a major Brexit justification.
If it's possible to shift to a low migration model at all, it's not going to happen in a year, and not without significant upheaval. So focus on the bit you might get some wins on, and that most irks your voters, in the hope they don't notice you're pretty reliant on the other bit to make everything add up and keep turning.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
Probably. I assume it's because they, er, assume, that the public overestimates how many come by what route, and so even though stopping the boats would not make as big a dent in the figures as the public may think, it looks tougher and thus more 'effective', and that would therefore be popular even if the overall number remains higher than the public say they want it to be.
It's also because they almost certainly know significantly reducing legal migration would put a large hole in their economic figures and put huge pressure in the short term on public services. But can't admit that as it would undermine a major Brexit justification.
If it's possible to shift to a low migration model at all, it's not going to happen in a year, and not without significant upheaval. So focus on the bit you might get some wins on, and that most irks your voters, in the hope they don't notice you're pretty reliant on the other bit to make everything add up and keep turning.
Can only speak for myself, but the boat people are a problem all around Europe & I can understand how difficult it is to stop, especially with all the emotional blackmail thrown at them from people who pretend they believe they’re all really asylums seekers rather than economic migrants
But we did vote to Leave the EU in order to reduce migration, they do have control over it, and have decided to increase it. That is more disappointing
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You think Farage is going to win I'm a Celeb? Your vote only counts one, you know.
He’s probably not going to win it, the favourite is odds on. I just wanted to see who’d bite
I haven’t voted, although I did watch it tonight - he didn’t seem that overjoyed to see his daughter and is blatantly looking for airtime. Did win his challenges though, ate some fish eyes with the bloke from JLS
I think the show ends on Sunday, so Farage will be in for all but one day at least. It has been great publicity for him, he’s come across as a good egg, and winning it is secondary to that
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
Germany have really gone to town on this.
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
delusion after delusion. this isn't 'bad spads/process', it's a PM full on living in a parallel world - he cannot accept he was wrong when he was told explicitly & repeatedly 'your policy cannot & won't work & it's a political disaster' - he's now pretending he's 'blocking' the courts when he very obviously is not & his policy/Bill very obviously leaves the ECHR/HRA framework in control
he's so monumentally botched it he is BOTH *in breach of ECHR* AND leaving the ECHR *in actual control*! and BOTH roused the dominant Left network to smash him AND isn't seriously trying to solve the problem! so 100% on brand for establishment Tories, 'the grownups' as the IfG calls them
he will not 'stop the boats', it's already game over for the fake rwanda gimmick & the PM has wasted 2022 & left himself no time
there will be a useless attempt in 2024 to claim he's been 'sabotaged' by Lords/courts & 'this is what the election is about', they'll pathetically try to use Take Back Control, but it won't work
tories doomed if they keep him & doomed if they spasm & fire him
He does get quite intense, Dom, doesn't he. It's like he's living in a world bounded by UnHerd polemics rather than the earth and sky.
My tip for Sunak would be to stop appearing at lecterns imprinted with Stop The Boats! It just looks ineffably naff. He's our PM ffs.
There's some perfectly good writing on unherd. Cummings is just best ignored.
There is. But it mainly seems to be about a created-for-polemic world rather than this one I'm living in.
Of course there is, it's bankrolled by the same guy who funds GB News and Legatum. There is money being spent in furtherance of an agenda. The creation of alternate realities.
Ah ok. Yes it shows. It works too. If you don't occasionally come up for air and give yourself a slap you might end up buying into some of the 'takes'. What particularly irritates is seeing self-proclaimed lefties writing on there. Presenting as 'free thinkers' but in reality just paying the rent. No crime but ... well as I say it irritates.
Nice to see some of our left wing posters showing their true colours when it comes to freedom of thought and speech.
He was criticising something he read. He merely said it “irritates”. Like so many on the right you conflate criticism with an attempt to silence. That way bad things lie.
Not really. Kinabalu regularly attacks the right to freedom of speech. Indeed we had a disagreement about it only a few days ago. I read his comments in that context.
Hmm touch of cross purposes. My bugbear is hyperbolic commentary about freedom of speech in the UK being under mortal threat not freedom of speech itself. On that my view is we have it about right. Free speech but with the exceptions as per our laws.
And I disagree with you. Our current laws are far too restrictive as regards free speech and much of them shoudl be repealed. So I still contend that you do not actually agree with free speech, rather with speech you agree with.
Not at all. There's tons of things I hear that I dislike or disagree with but only a very tiny fraction of it would I wish to be illegal. And that tiny fraction is pretty much the stuff that is illegal.
Again that is why I disagree with you. Much of what is currently illegal should not be. We should not have effective blasphemy laws. We should not use the law to protect people from hurt feelings or offense. The laws constraining speech should be restricted to endangerment and incitement. Anything libelous or defamatory should be covered by the relevant civil laws but even there the scope should be much reduced.
Well fine. So it's not that I particularly argue against free speech, I'm ok with the UK status quo, it's you that argues for more of an untramelled US style approach. You were making me sound like some sort of anti free speech outlier. Which I'm really not.
delusion after delusion. this isn't 'bad spads/process', it's a PM full on living in a parallel world - he cannot accept he was wrong when he was told explicitly & repeatedly 'your policy cannot & won't work & it's a political disaster' - he's now pretending he's 'blocking' the courts when he very obviously is not & his policy/Bill very obviously leaves the ECHR/HRA framework in control
he's so monumentally botched it he is BOTH *in breach of ECHR* AND leaving the ECHR *in actual control*! and BOTH roused the dominant Left network to smash him AND isn't seriously trying to solve the problem! so 100% on brand for establishment Tories, 'the grownups' as the IfG calls them
he will not 'stop the boats', it's already game over for the fake rwanda gimmick & the PM has wasted 2022 & left himself no time
there will be a useless attempt in 2024 to claim he's been 'sabotaged' by Lords/courts & 'this is what the election is about', they'll pathetically try to use Take Back Control, but it won't work
tories doomed if they keep him & doomed if they spasm & fire him
He does get quite intense, Dom, doesn't he. It's like he's living in a world bounded by UnHerd polemics rather than the earth and sky.
My tip for Sunak would be to stop appearing at lecterns imprinted with Stop The Boats! It just looks ineffably naff. He's our PM ffs.
There's some perfectly good writing on unherd. Cummings is just best ignored.
There is. But it mainly seems to be about a created-for-polemic world rather than this one I'm living in.
Of course there is, it's bankrolled by the same guy who funds GB News and Legatum. There is money being spent in furtherance of an agenda. The creation of alternate realities.
Ah ok. Yes it shows. It works too. If you don't occasionally come up for air and give yourself a slap you might end up buying into some of the 'takes'. What particularly irritates is seeing self-proclaimed lefties writing on there. Presenting as 'free thinkers' but in reality just paying the rent. No crime but ... well as I say it irritates.
Nice to see some of our left wing posters showing their true colours when it comes to freedom of thought and speech.
He was criticising something he read. He merely said it “irritates”. Like so many on the right you conflate criticism with an attempt to silence. That way bad things lie.
Not really. Kinabalu regularly attacks the right to freedom of speech. Indeed we had a disagreement about it only a few days ago. I read his comments in that context.
Hmm touch of cross purposes. My bugbear is hyperbolic commentary about freedom of speech in the UK being under mortal threat not freedom of speech itself. On that my view is we have it about right. Free speech but with the exceptions as per our laws.
And I disagree with you. Our current laws are far too restrictive as regards free speech and much of them shoudl be repealed. So I still contend that you do not actually agree with free speech, rather with speech you agree with.
Not at all. There's tons of things I hear that I dislike or disagree with but only a very tiny fraction of it would I wish to be illegal. And that tiny fraction is pretty much the stuff that is illegal.
Again that is why I disagree with you. Much of what is currently illegal should not be. We should not have effective blasphemy laws. We should not use the law to protect people from hurt feelings or offense. The laws constraining speech should be restricted to endangerment and incitement. Anything libelous or defamatory should be covered by the relevant civil laws but even there the scope should be much reduced.
Well fine. So it's not that I particularly argue against free speech, I'm ok with the UK status quo, it's you that argues for more of an untramelled US style approach. You were making me sound like some sort of anti free speech outlier. Which I'm really not.
Not at all. What I am arguing for is a removal of the recent laws (over the last 20 - 30 years) which have severely restricted freedom of speech. I am not saying you are an outlier. Sadly many people agree with your stance. But that doesn't make you any less an opponent of free speech.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
Germany have really gone to town on this.
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
The trains in the UK are too expensive. Up to £1 per mile in peak time on commuter routes around London.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
Germany have really gone to town on this.
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
The trains in the UK are too expensive. Up to £1 per mile in peak time on commuter routes around London.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
I'd suspect that if you count any man aged~18-60 as a fighter you'd get about that ratio by blowing up random houses.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
The IDF isn't just killing people, it's also depriving the survivors of water, food, power, comms, and is also ordering people out of their homes at gunpoint, effectively indulging in a bit of ethnic cleansing.
At least in London, single bus fares are £1.75, and you can do multiple journeys in one hour.
Really pleased they scrapped the plans to abolish the paper one day travel card, because it's perfect for anyone who wants to just spend all day travelling around on the London transport system. Of course with electronic methods of payment, you get fined if you spend more than about 80 minutes in the system without exiting.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
The IDF isn't just killing people, it's also depriving the survivors of water, food, power, comms, and is also ordering people out of their homes at gunpoint, effectively indulging in a bit of ethnic cleansing.
Can we get a similar itemised list from you of what Hamas did to Israeli civilians on October 7th?
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
I'd suspect that if you count any man aged~18-60 as a fighter you'd get about that ratio by blowing up random houses.
Not in Gaza, where approximately 50% of the population is under 18.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
Indeed and the US has therefore decided that was enough for it to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for a Gaza ceasefire, despite 13 out of 15 members voting in favour with the UK abstaining https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67653615
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
I'd suspect that if you count any man aged~18-60 as a fighter you'd get about that ratio by blowing up random houses.
Not in Gaza, where approximately 50% of the population is under 18.
The US considers MAM to be 16+ & I do remember reading articles about Israel showing the same classification but yes ~25% is not 33%.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
I'd suspect that if you count any man aged~18-60 as a fighter you'd get about that ratio by blowing up random houses.
Not in Gaza, where approximately 50% of the population is under 18.
The US considers MAM to be 16+ & I do remember reading articles about Israel showing the same classification but yes ~25% is not 33%.
It is still not s great hit rate unless the IDF are being very cautious about identifying casualties as Hamas, which I doubt.
But if you believe the figures, it is slightly better than random.
"Jonathan Sumption: Why the Covid inquiry is a farce
Instead of learning lessons from lockdowns, the hearing is more interested in knocking the stuffing out of the government, writes Jonathan Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court"
At least in London, single bus fares are £1.75, and you can do multiple journeys in one hour.
In Seattle and King County, regular bus fare = $3.50 which includes transfer for one and a half hours.
However, fares for those 65 plus are $1.00 with tranfer.
NOTE that riding the bus in Seattle is one instance where you generally do better paying in CASH instead of electronically.
Why? Because while electronic transfers are limited to 1.5 hr, PAPER transfers given my bus drivers are almost always for looooooooooonger than that.
Heck, I've gotten on the bus in early morning, put my buck in the till . . . and been handed a transfer good until 6pm.
Re: one-day card in London just raised by Andy, we used to have that in Seattle. Out-of-town visitors still ask for it. It was major loss for transit riders, locals as well as tourists, when powers-that-be eliminated it.
Just checked Chat GPT for the first time in about 6 months and it's still giving some incorrect information about UK election results. I thought they might have corrected it by now.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
Indeed and the US has therefore decided that was enough for it to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for a Gaza ceasefire, despite 13 out of 15 members voting in favour with the UK abstaining https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67653615
"Jonathan Sumption: Why the Covid inquiry is a farce
Instead of learning lessons from lockdowns, the hearing is more interested in knocking the stuffing out of the government, writes Jonathan Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court"
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
Just checked Chat GPT for the first time in about 6 months and it's still giving some incorrect information about UK election results. I thought they might have corrected it by now.
It just regurgitates what it finds on its library copy of the internet.
Just checked Chat GPT for the first time in about 6 months and it's still giving some incorrect information about UK election results. I thought they might have corrected it by now.
It just regurgitates what it finds on its library copy of the internet.
Hence it’s still very easy to trick, as in the following just ran:
User: Which weighs more, a tonne of lead or two tonnes of feathers?
ChatGPT: Two tonnes of feathers weigh more than a tonne of lead. It's a classic play on words! Feathers are much lighter than lead, so you need a larger quantity to equal the weight of a smaller amount of lead. Nice try, though!
User: Which weighs more, three tonnes of lead or two tonnes of feathers?
ChatGPT: Three tonnes of lead still weigh less than two tonnes of feathers. The trick remains the same—it's all about the quantity needed to match the weight. Feathers are just so light!
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Yes. It's a total sign that they are utterly out of touch. Headed on the piss in the Toon for Xmas do. Colleagues all booking taxis at £10 a head each way. Me. I'm on the bus. Not a single one of them knew it was £2.
We’re off to Birtley, of all places, for a meal tonight. We will catch the bus there and back. It’s a bargain.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
I'd suspect that if you count any man aged~18-60 as a fighter you'd get about that ratio by blowing up random houses.
The history of "Body Counts" suggests that isn't far from the truth.
Supposedly there were 50 000 Hamas fighters in Gaza, so to wipe them out will require killing 150 000 people, assuming the ratio remains the same, and these body count figures approximate to reality.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
The centrality of sexual violence in all this should not be underestimated. As one eminent Israeli historian put it to me in an email this week, “On 7 October Israel [itself] was raped and humiliated; the mass rape of women (and some men) was the apt microcosm. This is something simply not grasped outside Israel.” That sense of violation and humiliation has fed a rage felt especially, the historian wrote, in the top brass of the IDF and Israeli intelligence, those who ignored the warning signs and allowed 7 October to happen. Those commanders feel a need to compensate, even atone, for their failure. “I don’t think Netanyahu could stop the IDF, even if he wanted to.”
Test:
Missing the point. (As ever). You think Hamas didn't imagine there would be a response? And, just in case Bibi was uncharacteritically minded not to react, they threw in a spot of torturing, disembowelling, gang-raping and mutilation before the murdering.
Israel has mass-murdered more women and children than Hamas in the last two months.
Israel has no more "mass-murdered" during the last two months than the RAF and USAF "mass-murdered" during WW2.
In modern terms the RAF and USAAF were indeed committing mass murder. The explicit targetting of civilians as proposed and executed by Harris would today unquestionably be considered a war crime.
In modern terms, pretty much any military leader, up until a short time ago, however just the cause, has committed war crimes.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
Except it was known at the time that it was not effective. And yet they still did it.
As so often, Bret Devereaux is interesting on the general subject of civilian casualties.
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
The IDF isn't just killing people, it's also depriving the survivors of water, food, power, comms, and is also ordering people out of their homes at gunpoint, effectively indulging in a bit of ethnic cleansing.
There’s a few Likudniks here who support that ethnic cleansing, demanding other Arab nations take all the Gazans, while ignoring the fact these states already have a considerable number of Palestinian refugees and their descendants who were ethnically cleansed.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
At least that’s an easy choice
Yep. That's what Mrs Foxy wants.
I love the island too, but not sure about living there permanently.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
At least that’s an easy choice
Yep. That's what Mrs Foxy wants.
I love the island too, but not sure about living there permanently.
Having to go to Southampton or Portsmouth for any significant medical stuff is the biggest downside.
Yet more flooding this weekend, sadly. Choose somewhere on a hill.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
Germany have really gone to town on this.
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
The trains in the UK are too expensive. Up to £1 per mile in peak time on commuter routes around London.
I think Heathrow Express may be the most expensive rail journey, per mile, in the world.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
At least that’s an easy choice
Indeed. Skegness with its better transport links and access to medical care is a very suitable retirement venue.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
Germany have really gone to town on this.
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
The trains in the UK are too expensive. Up to £1 per mile in peak time on commuter routes around London.
I think Heathrow Express may be the most expensive rail journey, per mile, in the world.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
Germany have really gone to town on this.
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
The trains in the UK are too expensive. Up to £1 per mile in peak time on commuter routes around London.
I think Heathrow Express may be the most expensive rail journey, per mile, in the world.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
At least that’s an easy choice
Yep. That's what Mrs Foxy wants.
I love the island too, but not sure about living there permanently.
Having to go to Southampton or Portsmouth for any significant medical stuff is the biggest downside.
Yet more flooding this weekend, sadly. Choose somewhere on a hill.
Yes, Mrs Foxy has lots of family on the Island, so we go fairly regularly including this New Year. Their tales of Island Medical Services are not very flattering.
I suspect she will get her way as she usually does, but I might negotiate a boat, campervan or both so as to get off the Island.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
Probably. I assume it's because they, er, assume, that the public overestimates how many come by what route, and so even though stopping the boats would not make as big a dent in the figures as the public may think, it looks tougher and thus more 'effective', and that would therefore be popular even if the overall number remains higher than the public say they want it to be.
It's also because they almost certainly know significantly reducing legal migration would put a large hole in their economic figures and put huge pressure in the short term on public services. But can't admit that as it would undermine a major Brexit justification.
If it's possible to shift to a low migration model at all, it's not going to happen in a year, and not without significant upheaval. So focus on the bit you might get some wins on, and that most irks your voters, in the hope they don't notice you're pretty reliant on the other bit to make everything add up and keep turning.
Can only speak for myself, but the boat people are a problem all around Europe & I can understand how difficult it is to stop, especially with all the emotional blackmail thrown at them from people who pretend they believe they’re all really asylums seekers rather than economic migrants
But we did vote to Leave the EU in order to reduce migration, they do have control over it, and have decided to increase it. That is more disappointing
But we are getting rid of the "forrin". Only last week there was a French woman who had lived in Leicester for 42 years, didn't get her paperwork in order and the Border Force did their work. The Government are getting to terms with those people you Brexiters wanted gone. Hats off to them.
Your problem is the outward flow of old British expats retiring to Spain has been stopped dead in its tracks. Them leaving would have counteracted the Bangladeshi nurses and doctors Boris promised us.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
At least that’s an easy choice
Indeed. Skegness with its better transport links and access to medical care is a very suitable retirement venue.
Clearly you have no knowledge of Boston Hospital. It has a reputation not much better than Sweeney Todd's barber shop!
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
At least that’s an easy choice
Indeed. Skegness with its better transport links and access to medical care is a very suitable retirement venue.
Clearly you have no knowledge of Boston Hospital. It has a reputation not much better than Sweeny Todd's barber shop!
I don’t know much about Boston. I know King’s Lynn is the sort of place you go to only if you are for whatever reason unable to saw your own leg off.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
Probably. I assume it's because they, er, assume, that the public overestimates how many come by what route, and so even though stopping the boats would not make as big a dent in the figures as the public may think, it looks tougher and thus more 'effective', and that would therefore be popular even if the overall number remains higher than the public say they want it to be.
It's also because they almost certainly know significantly reducing legal migration would put a large hole in their economic figures and put huge pressure in the short term on public services. But can't admit that as it would undermine a major Brexit justification.
If it's possible to shift to a low migration model at all, it's not going to happen in a year, and not without significant upheaval. So focus on the bit you might get some wins on, and that most irks your voters, in the hope they don't notice you're pretty reliant on the other bit to make everything add up and keep turning.
Can only speak for myself, but the boat people are a problem all around Europe & I can understand how difficult it is to stop, especially with all the emotional blackmail thrown at them from people who pretend they believe they’re all really asylums seekers rather than economic migrants
But we did vote to Leave the EU in order to reduce migration, they do have control over it, and have decided to increase it. That is more disappointing
But we are getting rid of the "forrin". Only last week there was a French woman who had lived in Leicester for 42 years, didn't get her paperwork in order and the Border Force did their work. The Government are getting to terms with those people you Brexiters wanted gone. Hats off to them.
Your problem is the outward flow of old British expats retiring to Spain has been stopped dead in its tracks. Them leaving would have counteracted the Bangladeshi nurses and doctors Boris promised us.
Indeed, people retiring to Spain etc must have put a good number of family houses on the market each year before Brexit.
Late to the party, but as a leftie I would like to acknowledge that the current government has one absolutely brilliant policy:
The £2 single bus fare cap.
(Though they're so quiet about it, it's hardly surprising that they get little or no credit for it. Instead, they just go on about failing to stop the boats).
Hell of a lot of routes not covered by that cap though.
Really? Not in my neck of the woods - all routes are covered. e.g. Brighton to Eastbourne for £2 - a snip. Helps to get cars off the road too.
Germany have really gone to town on this.
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
The trains in the UK are too expensive. Up to £1 per mile in peak time on commuter routes around London.
I think Heathrow Express may be the most expensive rail journey, per mile, in the world.
I assumed this wouldn't be the case when included in a rail fare, but it is: a return to Luton Airport is about £9 more expensive than a return to Luton Airport Parkway station.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
I mean, there are lots of middle-income countries with lovely coastlines that would probably be happy to take British retirees if the British government was going to pay for their pensions and healthcare and add a little extra something for the host country. It would definitely be easier to negotiate than finding somewhere to take asylum seekers the British wanted to deport.
But my guess is that the objection a lot of voters have to immigration isn't really about the net population change, so this would mostly not impress them.
Its ironic that if the government get net migration down to 300,000 that would be seen as a success . And yet that amount was apparently far too much before the referendum.
Let’s be blunt if Leave had said out of the EU immigration would be the same they would have lost .
People can peddle the sovereignty guff all they like , it was immigration that was the decisive factor driven on by the right wing press.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
Probably. I assume it's because they, er, assume, that the public overestimates how many come by what route, and so even though stopping the boats would not make as big a dent in the figures as the public may think, it looks tougher and thus more 'effective', and that would therefore be popular even if the overall number remains higher than the public say they want it to be.
It's also because they almost certainly know significantly reducing legal migration would put a large hole in their economic figures and put huge pressure in the short term on public services. But can't admit that as it would undermine a major Brexit justification.
If it's possible to shift to a low migration model at all, it's not going to happen in a year, and not without significant upheaval. So focus on the bit you might get some wins on, and that most irks your voters, in the hope they don't notice you're pretty reliant on the other bit to make everything add up and keep turning.
Can only speak for myself, but the boat people are a problem all around Europe & I can understand how difficult it is to stop, especially with all the emotional blackmail thrown at them from people who pretend they believe they’re all really asylums seekers rather than economic migrants
But we did vote to Leave the EU in order to reduce migration, they do have control over it, and have decided to increase it. That is more disappointing
But we are getting rid of the "forrin". Only last week there was a French woman who had lived in Leicester for 42 years, didn't get her paperwork in order and the Border Force did their work. The Government are getting to terms with those people you Brexiters wanted gone. Hats off to them.
Your problem is the outward flow of old British expats retiring to Spain has been stopped dead in its tracks. Them leaving would have counteracted the Bangladeshi nurses and doctors Boris promised us.
Shame for this French woman, shame also for the many Brits who lived in Europe who ended up being kicked out,
At least the U.K. allowed anyone who wanted to stay here the opportunity to do so. Our former European partners were less accommodating.
Its ironic that if the government get net migration down to 300,000 that would be seen as a success . And yet that amount was apparently far too much before the referendum.
Let’s be blunt if Leave had said out of the EU immigration would be the same they would have lost .
People can peddle the sovereignty guff all they like , it was immigration that was the decisive factor driven on by the right wing press.
Uncontrolled inward migration was an issue. There were many issues that caused people to vote to leave the EU. As Lord Ashcroft’s poll showed. There was not one decisive issue.
It was a coalition of voters with different reasons for leave. If it had been a single issue vote based on migration leave would have lost.
The crazy thing about the stop the boats obsession is that there must be a relatively easy way of reducing net migration to less than half a million. Can’t actually believe I’m typing ‘reducing net migration to less than half a million.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
You're right about the numbers, asylum isn't much of it and asylum seekers on small boats is even less. But what do you want to stop specifically?
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
We used to have that with FoM so people could retire to the Costas, or Algarve, Greece or Tuscany. Now the choice is Skegness or the Isle of Wight.
I mean, there are lots of middle-income countries with lovely coastlines that would probably be happy to take British retirees if the British government was going to pay for their pensions and healthcare and add a little extra something for the host country. It would definitely be easier to negotiate than finding somewhere to take asylum seekers the British wanted to deport.
But my guess is that the objection a lot of voters have to immigration isn't really about the net population change, so this would mostly not impress them.
Comments
Wayne Rooney is such an awful football manager he makes Gerrard and Lampard look like Arteta and Pep Guardiola. Coventry could have easily won 4 or 5 nil tonight. He's had just one win in his 9 games and taken 5 points from them.
It’s very easy to drop from your media mix, as an advertiser - the other two are not.
Yes, big advertisers say they are boycotting X but they said the same about Meta, YouTube etc - and those companies still published strong numbers.
You drew a direct comparison between the numbers posted by Meta and YouTube suggesting that X could follow the same path. I quoted numbers showing the opposite.
The "affluent part of London" won't decide this election.
What do you estimate the prior voting record of parents of private school children to be?
They may well be "fired up". But voting Tory just like they did last time is a net gain of 0.
He was undeniably evil, however.
If I faced an enemy like the Nazis, I’d do what Harris did, if I thought it would be effective.
What about Wayne Rooney makes you think, now there’s a fella who can run a football team?
He was a cracking player; one of the best forwards this country has ever produced. That has very little bearing on how good he will be managing in the second and third tiers of football.
Some great players have gone on to become great managers (Pep was bloody decent, for example) but by and large the great managers tend to have been solid at best, and some barely played at all.
It's a total sign that they are utterly out of touch.
Headed on the piss in the Toon for Xmas do. Colleagues all booking taxis at £10 a head each way.
Me. I'm on the bus. Not a single one of them knew it was £2.
Your post stated I said X was making strong ad revenues. I stated it didn’t and that the comment referred to previous ad boycotts of Meta and YouTube where advertisers had said the same and yet they reposted strong
numbers.
If you want to act superior / take the piss, get your facts right. you misread my post and now you are getting all lawyerly about it.
50 years ago there was no science or training in it.
But even then, a player of the stature of Brian Clough started at Hartlepool.
Shankly managed Carlisle, Grimsby and Workington.
The modern multi millionaire just won't start there. And isn't prepared to go to Indonesia or somewhere to prove themselves.
What he really needs is a low-pressure League One job where he has some money to spend (but not so much it makes promotion a must) to work at it and develop tactically. Though whether he wants or needs that is another question. And whether that kind of club - with little fuss or dysfunction - needs or would want him, is yet another.
See also GM's bus franchising model, which I think is also being rolled out across tge country, which might see BenPointer's village get its bus service back.
Boris was personally pretty invested in the bus strategy, I think. The introduction to it is a connosieur's example of Borisese.
Why bother with the boats when the legal migration is probably more of a concern?
Scared of the king of the jungle I think
I suspect Rooney will be working as a pundit in 18 months time.
Generally he played character parts rather than leading roles but that was his forte.
I haven’t voted, although I did watch it tonight - he didn’t seem that overjoyed to see his daughter and is blatantly looking for airtime. Did win his challenges though, ate some fish eyes with the bloke from JLS
In some way.
While you walk to the next village. Who voted in the correct way.
If it's possible to shift to a low migration model at all, it's not going to happen in a year, and not without significant upheaval. So focus on the bit you might get some wins on, and that most irks your voters, in the hope they don't notice you're pretty reliant on the other bit to make everything add up and keep turning.
But we did vote to Leave the EU in order to reduce migration, they do have control over it, and have decided to increase it. That is more disappointing
There is now a monthly pass which costs 49 euros and with which you can travel anywhere in the country on public transport - trains, buses, trams, the whole lot. A friend of mine is getting a pass for February so he can travel round Germany by train. The only exclusion is the high speed Intercity and eurocity trains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Blond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
Things can never be better than bad. But, they can be worse, or worst.
https://acoup.blog/author/aimedtact/
If indeed, the IDF is correct that it is killing one Hamas fighter for every two civilians, that is not a *good* record, but it is not abnormal either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67653615
Badenoch 4.6
Mordaunt 6.6
Braverman 7.2
Cleverly 9.6
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-party-leaders/next-conservative-leader-betting-1.205526560
But if you believe the figures, it is slightly better than random.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/covid-19-inquiry-farce-jonathan-sumption-7vgtxp037
"Jonathan Sumption: Why the Covid inquiry is a farce
Instead of learning lessons from lockdowns, the hearing is more interested in knocking the stuffing out of the government, writes Jonathan Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court"
However, fares for those 65 plus are $1.00 with tranfer.
NOTE that riding the bus in Seattle is one instance where you generally do better paying in CASH instead of electronically.
Why? Because while electronic transfers are limited to 1.5 hr, PAPER transfers given my bus drivers are almost always for looooooooooonger than that.
Heck, I've gotten on the bus in early morning, put my buck in the till . . . and been handed a transfer good until 6pm.
Re: one-day card in London just raised by Andy, we used to have that in Seattle. Out-of-town visitors still ask for it. It was major loss for transit riders, locals as well as tourists, when powers-that-be eliminated it.
Family visas are already insanely restrictive; My Canadian friend with Japanese kids who married a Scot is constantly saving her pennies to cover thousands of pounds in fees for visa renewal fees, she has no recourse to benefits, she has to pay a special surcharge for the NHS while still having to pay all the taxes and social security that are supposed to pay for it in the first place. And that's if you can even get in as a foreign spouse; There are all kinds of rules like requiring that the British person has a high income, even if the foreign spouse can earn loads of money themselves and pay taxes on it.
They opened up "highly skilled" visas and visas for healthcare workers; You could not do that, but then you wouldn't have enough doctors and nurses, which the voters would hate even more than having foreigners in the country.
They let a bunch of Ukrainian families in; Their country has been invaded by Russia, people in the occupied areas are getting deported, tortured or killed, and the people who aren't are at risk of bombing raids, and Russia might invade further next year because the entirety of western civilization is letting itself get outproduced in drones and ammunition by Russia. Deporting them seems... bad...
So what's the easy way?
I mean, I can think of easy ways to do it if you're prepared to spend money on it but it would be at the other end, by getting British people to leave. Subsidized retirement villages in middle-income countries with nice coastlines, stuff like that.
User: Which weighs more, a tonne of lead or two tonnes of feathers?
ChatGPT: Two tonnes of feathers weigh more than a tonne of lead. It's a classic play on words! Feathers are much lighter than lead, so you need a larger quantity to equal the weight of a smaller amount of lead. Nice try, though!
User: Which weighs more, three tonnes of lead or two tonnes of feathers?
ChatGPT: Three tonnes of lead still weigh less than two tonnes of feathers. The trick remains the same—it's all about the quantity needed to match the weight. Feathers are just so light!
Supposedly there were 50 000 Hamas fighters in Gaza, so to wipe them out will require killing 150 000 people, assuming the ratio remains the same, and these body count figures approximate to reality.
I love the island too, but not sure about living there permanently.
Yet more flooding this weekend, sadly. Choose somewhere on a hill.
If she loses her seat then the Tories are going to be devastated if that swing is repeated across the nation.
The new Luton Airport train is worse, it’s a fiver for a mile and a half to the town. https://www.timeout.com/uk/news/move-over-heathrow-express-the-uk-has-a-new-most-expensive-railway-journey-022423
I suspect she will get her way as she usually does, but I might negotiate a boat, campervan or both so as to get off the Island.
Your problem is the outward flow of old British expats retiring to Spain has been stopped dead in its tracks. Them leaving would have counteracted the Bangladeshi nurses and doctors Boris promised us.
But my guess is that the objection a lot of voters have to immigration isn't really about the net population change, so this would mostly not impress them.
https://i0.wp.com/wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/img639-1.jpeg?ssl=1
Let’s be blunt if Leave had said out of the EU immigration would be the same they would have lost .
People can peddle the sovereignty guff all they like , it was immigration that was the decisive factor driven on by the right wing press.
At least the U.K. allowed anyone who wanted to stay here the opportunity to do so. Our former European partners were less accommodating.
It was a coalition of voters with different reasons for leave. If it had been a single issue vote based on migration leave would have lost.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/