That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
AUKUS was just a glorified arms sale. Boris spun it as some kind of military alliance because he needed to brighten up his MPs' afternoon when things were looking a bit glum post-Brexit.
No, that’s entirely wrong (and unsurprisingly so, from you, are you now so old you are demented? That is a sincere question and not meant unkindly)
AUKUS is a deeply serious new venture. It is the USA going beyond NATO and imagining a post NATO world when Russia is no longer a threat - or, when Russia is only a threat to Western Europe which, quite frankly, is easily rich enough to defend itself (Trump is merely willing to say out loud what a lot of Americans think in silence). AUKUS is obviously aimed at China (and maybe even India, eventually)
The eventual concept must be AUKUS plus NZ and Canada, the Five Eyes, all English speaking, with English Common Law, and with four of them actually with the same head of state - the British monarch. That is a potent global alliance which has a very good chance of running the world for another century, whatever China does
After that, Aliens
I've got news for you son, we're already here - and we're having great fun messing around with your Earth planet.
I know a few on here will say 'about time' but the Graun is not shying away from calling out the Hamas atrocities for what the heinous crimes they were.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
So to be clear: you are willing to see Houthis massacre people in Yemen, and for Houthis to kill poorly-paid Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian on ships? You are willing for the poor to get shafted in this country by higher interest rates because the Red Sea's been closed? You pretend to care for the poor, but actually don't give a shit about them?
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
AUKUS was just a glorified arms sale. Boris spun it as some kind of military alliance because he needed to brighten up his MPs' afternoon when things were looking a bit glum post-Brexit.
No, that’s entirely wrong (and unsurprisingly so, from you, are you now so old you are demented? That is a sincere question and not meant unkindly)
AUKUS is a deeply serious new venture. It is the USA going beyond NATO and imagining a post NATO world when Russia is no longer a threat - or, when Russia is only a threat to Western Europe which, quite frankly, is easily rich enough to defend itself (Trump is merely willing to say out loud what a lot of Americans think in silence). AUKUS is obviously aimed at China (and maybe even India, eventually)
The eventual concept must be AUKUS plus NZ and Canada, the Five Eyes, all English speaking, with English Common Law, and with four of them actually with the same head of state - the British monarch. That is a potent global alliance which has a very good chance of running the world for another century, whatever China does
After that, Aliens
What happens in Western Europe is far more central to UK security interests than what happens in the Pacific.
I know a few on here will say 'about time' but the Graun is not shying away from calling out the Hamas atrocities for what the heinous crimes they were.
There's thing I've seen, time and time again, with failing startups.
There is this one feature that's missing from the product, and once it is delivered, people will flock to it, and the business will be saved. It's some kind of technical Hail Mary, and the entire management team is bought into the cult of the One Killer Feature.
And what happens is that the killer feature is added, and maybe the needle moves a little bit, but the business is not saved.
Successful businesses iterate. They take what they have, and every day they make it a little bit better.
The current government is a failing startup. And Rwanda is their Hail Mary.
Instead of governing well, and improving everything a little every day, they have invested all their metaphorical eggs in a policy to send a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda so they can claim asylum there.
Seeing the government in this mode causes me to clench my buttocks and screw up my face. It's very embarrassing.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
AUKUS was just a glorified arms sale. Boris spun it as some kind of military alliance because he needed to brighten up his MPs' afternoon when things were looking a bit glum post-Brexit.
No, that’s entirely wrong (and unsurprisingly so, from you, are you now so old you are demented? That is a sincere question and not meant unkindly)
AUKUS is a deeply serious new venture. It is the USA going beyond NATO and imagining a post NATO world when Russia is no longer a threat - or, when Russia is only a threat to Western Europe which, quite frankly, is easily rich enough to defend itself (Trump is merely willing to say out loud what a lot of Americans think in silence). AUKUS is obviously aimed at China (and maybe even India, eventually)
The eventual concept must be AUKUS plus NZ and Canada, the Five Eyes, all English speaking, with English Common Law, and with four of them actually with the same head of state - the British monarch. That is a potent global alliance which has a very good chance of running the world for another century, whatever China does
After that, Aliens
I've got news for you son, we're already here - and we're having great fun messing around with your Earth planet.
Oh, you're here as well. Me and Leon are from Planet ShortLeggedBlokes. You can always tell us from the Humans, because our d*cks brush the floor....
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
Are they proposing to bring them back to life?
Also, what's the plan for "doing something about" the c. 300,000 dead Yemenis that have resulted from the civil war the Houthis started ten years ago and is still ongoing?
You can't have "stopped giving a shit" about them if you never started...
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Trying to think back to when and how I moved from the childhood cuisine I've described to being also a foodie, liking to cook everything from scratch with fresh ingredients and experiment.
Partly it was uni, at undergraduate level - I was in quite a diverse group in halls and learned some Indian and north African meals from basic ingredients through friends. But I wasn't all that adventurous post-uni. I think the real transformation was as a postgrad a few years later where I lived near a large Co-Op serving a quite deprived mostly WWC area, but clearly there was either a national/regional policy on what was stocked or the manager was a foodie and not very in tune with customers. I, also skint, would go in after a day at the uni and trawl the reduced aisle, which tended to include nice cuts of beef, lots of seafood, exotic vegetables and fruit, fresh tuna steaks* etc. I'd hoover these up, take them home and google how to cook them with some other basic ingredients, such as spices that I began to accumulate. After a year or two I was eating better than I ever had for less than I'd ever spent.
*first time I bought these the lady on the checkout peered at it suspiciously and wanted to take it off me as it was a funny colour, being the deep red/brown of fresh tuna, rather than cooked tuna-in-a-tin colour
At least the lady was responsible enough to check if she thought something was wrong!
I was brought up on such basic stuff as mince and tatties, swede and potato soup with shank of lamb ( calling @malcolmg - great stuff), and clootie dumpling, and still have my granny's then mother's recipe book. Though the dog got the boiled sheep's head.
Those were absolutely basic dishes you'd find in most families. Even stuff like fish fingers which came in in the 1950s and 60s wasn't that processed, ditto frozen peas. Ultraprocessed stuff wasn't that commn - CHorleywood bread was perhaps the most significant. Ice cream was from the local Italian family. No deep fat fryers closer than the chippie. You used a saucepan but the faff meant an occasional treat with a fillet of fish from the fish shop.
I found myself replicating such things at uni - as well as the other experimental stuff that you did. Still have mince and potatoes and some veg when we can get some decent mince.
But them schools taught cookery in those days and had the failities for 'domestic science'.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
AUKUS was just a glorified arms sale. Boris spun it as some kind of military alliance because he needed to brighten up his MPs' afternoon when things were looking a bit glum post-Brexit.
No, that’s entirely wrong (and unsurprisingly so, from you, are you now so old you are demented? That is a sincere question and not meant unkindly)
AUKUS is a deeply serious new venture. It is the USA going beyond NATO and imagining a post NATO world when Russia is no longer a threat - or, when Russia is only a threat to Western Europe which, quite frankly, is easily rich enough to defend itself (Trump is merely willing to say out loud what a lot of Americans think in silence). AUKUS is obviously aimed at China (and maybe even India, eventually)
The eventual concept must be AUKUS plus NZ and Canada, the Five Eyes, all English speaking, with English Common Law, and with four of them actually with the same head of state - the British monarch. That is a potent global alliance which has a very good chance of running the world for another century, whatever China does
After that, Aliens
I've got news for you son, we're already here - and we're having great fun messing around with your Earth planet.
Oh, you're here as well. Me and Leon are from Planet ShortLeggedBlokes. You can always tell us from the Humans, because our d*cks brush the floor....
Oh, so you must be the tripodal Homomdans of the Culture Novels?
Hmmm. On Mr Chump and his latest potentially murderous mob of supporters.
In the New York Civil Case (which is a Jury assessing damages to go to the woman Trump has already been found to have raped / sexually abused) already has the unusual measure of an anonymous Jury whom the Judge has instructed to use false names in the jury room, not engage in personal conversation, and not to identify their role to their families.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
So to be clear: you are willing to see Houthis massacre people in Yemen, and for Houthis to kill poorly-paid Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian on ships? You are willing for the poor to get shafted in this country by higher interest rates because the Red Sea's been closed? You pretend to care for the poor, but actually don't give a shit about them?
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
Morality is variations of the trolley problem. And I am increasingly annoyed at the knee jerk belief that the lives and comfort of those in the West somehow matter more than lives elsewhere. If the Houthi's actions in the Red Sea make goods here more expensive, then the government has the option to react - it won't because it doesn't care about the British poor. I would prefer innocent people not be killed anywhere, but why should it be fine for Gazans to die and not anyone else? Do Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi poor only matter when they're shifting goods for the profit of multinationals and the comfort of Western consumers? If we're all going to be hypocrites, which we are, I may as well be an honest one.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
...and universal education and the privatised care home crisis, but, and paraphrasing Liam Byrne there really is no money left.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
There was a mug
Many mugs, in fact: anyone who believed New Labour was a mug.
I may be a mug, but I'd return the rum bunch in a heartbeat after your utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers.
You have no business complaining about any Government prior to 2019 after you voted for this set of outrageous clown-cowboys.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Trying to think back to when and how I moved from the childhood cuisine I've described to being also a foodie, liking to cook everything from scratch with fresh ingredients and experiment.
Partly it was uni, at undergraduate level - I was in quite a diverse group in halls and learned some Indian and north African meals from basic ingredients through friends. But I wasn't all that adventurous post-uni. I think the real transformation was as a postgrad a few years later where I lived near a large Co-Op serving a quite deprived mostly WWC area, but clearly there was either a national/regional policy on what was stocked or the manager was a foodie and not very in tune with customers. I, also skint, would go in after a day at the uni and trawl the reduced aisle, which tended to include nice cuts of beef, lots of seafood, exotic vegetables and fruit, fresh tuna steaks* etc. I'd hoover these up, take them home and google how to cook them with some other basic ingredients, such as spices that I began to accumulate. After a year or two I was eating better than I ever had for less than I'd ever spent.
*first time I bought these the lady on the checkout peered at it suspiciously and wanted to take it off me as it was a funny colour, being the deep red/brown of fresh tuna, rather than cooked tuna-in-a-tin colour
At least the lady was responsible enough to check if she thought something was wrong!
I was brought up on such basic stuff as mince and tatties, swede and potato soup with shank of lamb ( calling @malcolmg - great stuff), and clootie dumpling, and still have my granny's then mother's recipe book. Though the dog got the boiled sheep's head.
Those were absolutely basic dishes you'd find in most families. Even stuff like fish fingers which came in in the 1950s and 60s wasn't that processed, ditto frozen peas. Ultraprocessed stuff wasn't that commn - CHorleywood bread was perhaps the most significant. Ice cream was from the local Italian family. No deep fat fryers closer than the chippie. You used a saucepan but the faff meant an occasional treat with a fillet of fish from the shop.
I found myself replicating such things at uni - as well as the other experimental stuff that you did. Still have mince and potatoes and some veg when we can get some decent mince.
But them schools taught cookery in those days and had the failities for 'domestic science'.
When I sailed on a tall ship to Dublin, the ship's cook provided us with tasty, nutritious food for what was a pittance a day (I think it was three quid per person, per day - although this was nearly 15 years ago). He said serving twenty people at once helped, as did the fact some of us were very seasick, and off the food. But he said one of his joys was arriving in a foreign port, hoovering up all the strange foreign meats and veg available, and creating new concoctions with them.
He was a very skilled cook, but an utter drunkard on shore.
There's thing I've seen, time and time again, with failing startups.
There is this one feature that's missing from the product, and once it is delivered, people will flock to it, and the business will be saved. It's some kind of technical Hail Mary, and the entire management team is bought into the cult of the One Killer Feature.
And what happens is that the killer feature is added, and maybe the needle moves a little bit, but the business is not saved.
Successful businesses iterate. They take what they have, and every day they make it a little bit better.
The current government is a failing startup. And Rwanda is their Hail Mary.
Instead of governing well, and improving everything a little every day, they have invested all their metaphorical eggs in a policy to send a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda so they can claim asylum there.
I agree to an extent, but if you look at this as 'ground battle' (the incremental improvements of which you speak) and 'air battle' (Rwanda) it makes more sense. Currently, we rate highly on the attractiveness scale to inward economic migration of a type we don't want, with asylum claims the most common method. Our system of benefits to look after such people is quite attractive, and key is that you are 3 times more likely to be granted asylum in the UK than you are in France, and even if refused you're not guaranteed to be deported. Yes, the Government should be tackling all this - cracking down on the gangs, speeding the process of deportation, eliminating the loophole provided by Theresa May's modern slavery laws, speeding up the asylum review process, tightening up the judging criteria to ensure a more 'France-like' balance of claims accepted and rejected, BUT each step here is flipping hard, and will be fought tooth and nail by the Home Office, the left-wing media, and horrified 'proudly-woke' Tory grandees like Theresa and George Osborne.
Alternatively, you can aim at dropping the equivalent of an atomic bomb on the problem and hope that does it. That bomb is Rwanda.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
...and universal education and the privatised care home crisis, but, and paraphrasing Liam Byrne there really is no money left.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
There was a mug
Many mugs, in fact: anyone who believed New Labour was a mug.
I may be a mug, but I'd return the rum bunch in a heartbeat after your utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers.
You have no business complaining about any Government prior to 2019 after you voted for this set of outrageous clown-cowboys.
*My* utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers? I think you give me a bit more power than I have.You seem to be under this strange misapprehension that I'm a Tory.
I didn't vote Tory in 2019. I've never voted for Boris, and won't be voting Tory at the next GE. But your sort of attitude might push me away from Labour and towards the Lib Dems.
(Traditionally, the cry has been: "We don't need your vote!")
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
So to be clear: you are willing to see Houthis massacre people in Yemen, and for Houthis to kill poorly-paid Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian on ships? You are willing for the poor to get shafted in this country by higher interest rates because the Red Sea's been closed? You pretend to care for the poor, but actually don't give a shit about them?
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
Morality is variations of the trolley problem. And I am increasingly annoyed at the knee jerk belief that the lives and comfort of those in the West somehow matter more than lives elsewhere. If the Houthi's actions in the Red Sea make goods here more expensive, then the government has the option to react - it won't because it doesn't care about the British poor. I would prefer innocent people not be killed anywhere, but why should it be fine for Gazans to die and not anyone else? Do Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi poor only matter when they're shifting goods for the profit of multinationals and the comfort of Western consumers? If we're all going to be hypocrites, which we are, I may as well be an honest one.
So you would support the government striking the Houthis, but they wouldn't do it because they don't care about the poor, but they did do it, so you oppose it?
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Trying to think back to when and how I moved from the childhood cuisine I've described to being also a foodie, liking to cook everything from scratch with fresh ingredients and experiment.
Partly it was uni, at undergraduate level - I was in quite a diverse group in halls and learned some Indian and north African meals from basic ingredients through friends. But I wasn't all that adventurous post-uni. I think the real transformation was as a postgrad a few years later where I lived near a large Co-Op serving a quite deprived mostly WWC area, but clearly there was either a national/regional policy on what was stocked or the manager was a foodie and not very in tune with customers. I, also skint, would go in after a day at the uni and trawl the reduced aisle, which tended to include nice cuts of beef, lots of seafood, exotic vegetables and fruit, fresh tuna steaks* etc. I'd hoover these up, take them home and google how to cook them with some other basic ingredients, such as spices that I began to accumulate. After a year or two I was eating better than I ever had for less than I'd ever spent.
*first time I bought these the lady on the checkout peered at it suspiciously and wanted to take it off me as it was a funny colour, being the deep red/brown of fresh tuna, rather than cooked tuna-in-a-tin colour
At least the lady was responsible enough to check if she thought something was wrong!
I was brought up on such basic stuff as mince and tatties, swede and potato soup with shank of lamb ( calling @malcolmg - great stuff), and clootie dumpling, and still have my granny's then mother's recipe book. Though the dog got the boiled sheep's head.
Those were absolutely basic dishes you'd find in most families. Even stuff like fish fingers which came in in the 1950s and 60s wasn't that processed, ditto frozen peas. Ultraprocessed stuff wasn't that commn - CHorleywood bread was perhaps the most significant. Ice cream was from the local Italian family. No deep fat fryers closer than the chippie. You used a saucepan but the faff meant an occasional treat with a fillet of fish from the shop.
I found myself replicating such things at uni - as well as the other experimental stuff that you did. Still have mince and potatoes and some veg when we can get some decent mince.
But them schools taught cookery in those days and had the failities for 'domestic science'.
Yeah, showed some care and attention. She knew me fairly well by then and we'd have a bit of a laugh about what I was buying (for the loose fruit/veg I'd sometimes have to tell her what it was - knowing myself only because I'd read it on the shelf a few minutes earlier!).
Basics are all good too, done well with good ingredients. That was the biggest revelation for me. Bit of decent fish or steak, well cooked, with good quality well cooked veg and a bit of butter/few herbs and it's all you need, sometimes.
We did have home ecnomics (or 'food tech', I think it was) at school, but mostly on the theory and science rather than the actual doing. I do remember being blown away after making fresh bread rolls at school, compared to the shop-bought stuff (but that was after several weeks of learning how flour is produced, what gluten is etc and how yeast works - all very interesting, but not essential for the actual making).
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
Also the left/right issue. Compare also the Spanich distinction between indfependista and nacionalista. Which matches the Scottish distinction between SNP and Slab-ScoTories.
It's not a new issue, anyway. I dimly remember Nicola Sturgeon discussing the whole question of a rename with one of the more sane interviewers - maybe at an Edinburgh Book Festival event?
For me the 'nationalism' that seeks to create a sovereign state is different to that in an already sovereign state. The latter type is what tends to be nasty.
I have just arrived in Bermuda ( sunny and 18 degrees!) so my round-up of local elections is a little late. We have Lab defences in Hackney and Wandsworth; LD defences in Sheffield and Richmond upon Thames; and a Con defence in Richmond upon Thames.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
So to be clear: you are willing to see Houthis massacre people in Yemen, and for Houthis to kill poorly-paid Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian on ships? You are willing for the poor to get shafted in this country by higher interest rates because the Red Sea's been closed? You pretend to care for the poor, but actually don't give a shit about them?
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
Morality is variations of the trolley problem. And I am increasingly annoyed at the knee jerk belief that the lives and comfort of those in the West somehow matter more than lives elsewhere. If the Houthi's actions in the Red Sea make goods here more expensive, then the government has the option to react - it won't because it doesn't care about the British poor. I would prefer innocent people not be killed anywhere, but why should it be fine for Gazans to die and not anyone else? Do Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi poor only matter when they're shifting goods for the profit of multinationals and the comfort of Western consumers? If we're all going to be hypocrites, which we are, I may as well be an honest one.
Well, the government has to look after its own people. It has very little power over the Israeli government, who, it should be remembering, suffered an act of war on October 7th. Should the Israelis not look after their own people?
The government is reacting to the Red Sea problems - perhaps it is not enough, or the wrong reaction, but it is not being ignored - and attitudes like yours make it harder for them to do anything.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
Also the left/right issue. Compare also the Spanich distinction between indfependista and nacionalista. Which matches the Scottish distinction between SNP and Slab-ScoTories.
It's not a new issue, anyway. I dimly remember Nicola Sturgeon discussing the whole question of a rename with one of the more sane interviewers - maybe at an Edinburgh Book Festival event?
For me the 'nationalism' that seeks to create a sovereign state is different to that in an already sovereign state. The latter type is what tends to be nasty.
Nastiness like creating a 'national' health service, as if people are more deserving of free healthcare just because of an accident of birth. It's immoral and the money should be spent on international aid to level the playing field.
Tata are apparently talking about replacing them with an electric arc furnace. I'll believe that when I see it.
Ugh. That's disappointing news. In slightly more positive news I can confirm work is rolling along on this https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/20201038.1-000-jobs-ebbw-vale-bottle-factory-planned/ which I'd have thought would have transferrable skills from the Talbot workers. Of course it's not the same scale as PT, hasn't been started and is just over 50 miles away.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
So to be clear: you are willing to see Houthis massacre people in Yemen, and for Houthis to kill poorly-paid Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian on ships? You are willing for the poor to get shafted in this country by higher interest rates because the Red Sea's been closed? You pretend to care for the poor, but actually don't give a shit about them?
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
Morality is variations of the trolley problem. And I am increasingly annoyed at the knee jerk belief that the lives and comfort of those in the West somehow matter more than lives elsewhere. If the Houthi's actions in the Red Sea make goods here more expensive, then the government has the option to react - it won't because it doesn't care about the British poor. I would prefer innocent people not be killed anywhere, but why should it be fine for Gazans to die and not anyone else? Do Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi poor only matter when they're shifting goods for the profit of multinationals and the comfort of Western consumers? If we're all going to be hypocrites, which we are, I may as well be an honest one.
There is no end to this issue, or making sense of it.
It is an unargued point in the modern western world that states have duties towards their own citizens which can and do override duties and responsibilities to others, and are much greater than those duties.
In the west vast numbers of people of all backgrounds and at all levels care very much about Gazans. On a scale of 1-100 I would put it at about 80. But by comparison there is Sudan, where the general concern on the same scale is close to Zero. The fighting and destruction, ethnic cleansing and displacement in Sudan is much greater than in Gaza. Why does the media and the political class not care at all?
Why do we speak so much about the numbers of refugees in small boats in the west, such as the UK, when Chad, Uganda, Turkey, Bangladesh have so many more and are completely ignored here?
The husband of Tory peer Michelle Mone is connected to a company that tax experts say should be investigated for fraud, BBC Newsnight has found.
Doug Barrowman has previously denied involvement in Vanquish Options, a firm that falsely claimed customers could write off money owed to the government.
But BBC News has identified Vanquish bosses with links to Mr Barrowman and seen emails sent by Vanquish from the same IP address as his Isle of Man HQ.
Mr Barrowman has denied any wrongdoing.
Tax experts suggest there are grounds to open a criminal investigation into Vanquish Options.
One of Mr Barrowman's firms, PPE MedPro, is already being investigated by the National Crime Agency over contracts worth more than £200m to supply PPE to the NHS during the Covid-19 pandemic.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Not so. Avocados were so widespread in the 1970s that people used them to decorate their bathrooms.
God that is an awful colour isn't it.
Joking apart, from a decidedly middle class background I hadn't even heard of an avo until I went to Uni in the mid 00s.
They simply didn't exist in the popular Dorset consciousness then...
I remember learning about Avocado's Constant in school chemistry lessons.
Think that was Avogadro's constant. And a truly remarkable idea. The number of atoms in a mole of any element is the same. At school I was fascinated by this but as an adult it seems a bit of a fix because you calculate the mass of a mole by reference to the weight of the number of atoms x Avogadro's constant so it becomes a bit self proving. Still pretty clever though.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
Tata are apparently talking about replacing them with an electric arc furnace. I'll believe that when I see it.
Ugh. That's disappointing news. In slightly more positive news I can confirm work is rolling along on this https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/20201038.1-000-jobs-ebbw-vale-bottle-factory-planned/ which I'd have thought would have transferrable skills from the Talbot workers. Of course it's not the same scale as PT, hasn't been started and is just over 50 miles away.
And is along the Heads of the Valleys Road. So that 50 miles will feel like 200.
From the PO inquiry. Today’s witness from Fujitsu, Peter Sewell, to Andy Dunks in an email from 2006.
“See you in court then, Fetters Lane where they used to hang people out to dry. I don’t suppose that type of thing happens any more though. That Castleton is a nasty chap and will be all out to rubbish the FJ name, it’s up to you to maintain absolute strength and integrity no matter what the prosecution throw at you, WE will all be behind you hoping you come through unscathed. Bless you.”
The husband of Tory peer Michelle Mone is connected to a company that tax experts say should be investigated for fraud, BBC Newsnight has found.
Doug Barrowman has previously denied involvement in Vanquish Options, a firm that falsely claimed customers could write off money owed to the government.
But BBC News has identified Vanquish bosses with links to Mr Barrowman and seen emails sent by Vanquish from the same IP address as his Isle of Man HQ.
Mr Barrowman has denied any wrongdoing.
Tax experts suggest there are grounds to open a criminal investigation into Vanquish Options.
One of Mr Barrowman's firms, PPE MedPro, is already being investigated by the National Crime Agency over contracts worth more than £200m to supply PPE to the NHS during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Barrowman and Mone must have shat themselves when they saw Neidle going through their tax arrangements on X. Unlike HMRC (some of the time) he's a man that does actually know the law backwards on taxation.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
...and universal education and the privatised care home crisis, but, and paraphrasing Liam Byrne there really is no money left.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
There was a mug
Many mugs, in fact: anyone who believed New Labour was a mug.
I may be a mug, but I'd return the rum bunch in a heartbeat after your utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers.
You have no business complaining about any Government prior to 2019 after you voted for this set of outrageous clown-cowboys.
*My* utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers? I think you give me a bit more power than I have.You seem to be under this strange misapprehension that I'm a Tory.
I didn't vote Tory in 2019. I've never voted for Boris, and won't be voting Tory at the next GE. But your sort of attitude might push me away from Labour and towards the Lib Dems.
(Traditionally, the cry has been: "We don't need your vote!")
How very dare you! I am no socialist. Please vote LibDem they rock. They are the New Labour replacement party.
To get back on topic, I’d like it noted that my ferocious new consumption regimen - sporadic fasting, calorific deficit, restricted booze intake - is having an effect. I have lost almost 10kg in 6 weeks
No doubt experts will say that is too fast but wow it is fast. I can face myself in the mirror. I can see RIBS
I am about 5kg from my target weight. Then - god willing - I will have FINALLY lost all the Covid blob and be back to where I was from 2005-2020
I'm down 4kg since Christmas - no booze, 40 mins light cardio every day, desire to binge eat gone when I'm not drunk / hungover.
Watch me put it all back on next month...
Dude. Bro. Mate. Well done!!
Don’t stop now. It’s all worth it. I suggest we team up together and egg each other on. I am determined to hit my target weight by Feb 8th (when I’m flying again probably). That gives me 3 weeks to lose about 5kg. Do-able!!
Let’s be weight watcher buddies
Pb weight watchers is on!
For me it's entirely about skipping the wine in the evenings (600 calories)
From that, I have less desire to snack (another 400 calories) plus more energy in the week for light cardio.
Considered ozempic but I just had to drop the wine...
It’s a deal
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
What’s your aim?
You're 4kg lighter than me. I'm 6'2" and fairly fit. Are you sure you really need to lose weight?
Yes, unfortunately
I’m just under 6 foot (yes yes, all men say that, but it is the case)
The BMI says I should be 80kg or under, however in my experience that is too light for me. I have a rugby forward’s physique. Barrel chested. Solid. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
So I start to look quite weird and pathetic if I go much under 80kg, I bottomed out at 74kg in about 2015 and I didn’t look better, in photos I look a tad scrawny
80-82kg is my ideal spot, I think. I also don’t want to get Ozempic Face when you lose so much weight, so fast, your entire face collapses
BTW did anyone find out if that’s what happened to Boris? His weight loss was shockingly fast, and definitely aged him
My biggest issue is that I've got no legs. well, I do, obvs, but they're short for my body size. An ex-gf who was the best part of a foot shorter than me had the same-length legs.
That makes me sound rather odd, doesn't it? But it also means that my torso is rather long, and therefore heavier than usual.
But I'd also mention mental happiness: IMV its better to be four or five kilos off your 'ideal' weight and happy, rather than at your ideal weight and constantly stressing about it, or going on faddy diets.
TBH, some of the most content people I know are overweight.
It makes all those long-distance runs, with your little legs, even more impressive.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan and their people grow restless as the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
I've no idea, but it's very handy for Russia. It drives Iran more into their sphere, and distracts the west. It allows people to say: "Why are we giving arms to Ukraine when we might need them for these other priorities?"
Unfortunately for Russia, there's also the non-negligable chance that it'll just increase the west's defence spending, something that was decreasing nicely (from Russia's POV), and which has already started to reverse thanks to their ill-advised adventures.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
Also the left/right issue. Compare also the Spanich distinction between indfependista and nacionalista. Which matches the Scottish distinction between SNP and Slab-ScoTories.
It's not a new issue, anyway. I dimly remember Nicola Sturgeon discussing the whole question of a rename with one of the more sane interviewers - maybe at an Edinburgh Book Festival event?
For me the 'nationalism' that seeks to create a sovereign state is different to that in an already sovereign state. The latter type is what tends to be nasty.
Nastiness like creating a 'national' health service, as if people are more deserving of free healthcare just because of an accident of birth. It's immoral and the money should be spent on international aid to level the playing field.
Oh c'mon. I'm talking about the national populist crap that's on a roll in so many places, not least America. XYZ first. Making XYZ great again. Close the borders. Incomers are polluting us. Pandering to, validating, feeding, exploiting and empowering prejudice rather than countering it. All of that absolute rot. It's the pits.
In 1970 the typical UK household spent 39.5% of their income on food.
In 2023 the typical UK household spends 11.5% of their income on food.
And the quality of what people eat today, and the variety of what people can eat and where they can get it from, is much improved in that time. How many were sourcing avocado or other bits we take for granted today while forking over two-fifths of their income on food?
Must admit I have never seen a campaign to bring back the Vesta curry.
Edit: And then I go online and find such a thing exists believe it or not. It can't surely be the same. They were dreadful.
Those were my introduction to both 'curry' and 'paella' Given my mum's cooking (meat cooked until any sign of moisture had gone, veg cooked until any sign of structure had gone) they were far from my least favourite meals
I was somewhat blown away aged about 19 having an actual paella in Spain. And at 16-17 or so at an Indian restaurant for curry (although slightly less so for that as we had at least graduated to some of the better curry sauces by then).
Kids today lack such transformative experiences, getting decent food from a young age
I was lucky. My mum was an excellent cook, both of traditional British food and experimenting with that new foreign nonsense. So even in the early 60s I experienced decent curries and that new fangled Spag Bol. The traditional stuff was properly cooked as well so no soggy veg and light steamed puddings and offal that was beautifully cooked like liver, tongue or kidneys. She did fantastic stuffed hearts in a rich gravy that melted in the mouth, which I have never had since.
I only had school dinners for a short time, but they were dreadful. Tough, gristly, thick liver compared to my mother's thin, rich melt in the mouth liver.
I feel very lucky, but that has made me a bit of a foodie.
Trying to think back to when and how I moved from the childhood cuisine I've described to being also a foodie, liking to cook everything from scratch with fresh ingredients and experiment.
Partly it was uni, at undergraduate level - I was in quite a diverse group in halls and learned some Indian and north African meals from basic ingredients through friends. But I wasn't all that adventurous post-uni. I think the real transformation was as a postgrad a few years later where I lived near a large Co-Op serving a quite deprived mostly WWC area, but clearly there was either a national/regional policy on what was stocked or the manager was a foodie and not very in tune with customers. I, also skint, would go in after a day at the uni and trawl the reduced aisle, which tended to include nice cuts of beef, lots of seafood, exotic vegetables and fruit, fresh tuna steaks* etc. I'd hoover these up, take them home and google how to cook them with some other basic ingredients, such as spices that I began to accumulate. After a year or two I was eating better than I ever had for less than I'd ever spent.
*first time I bought these the lady on the checkout peered at it suspiciously and wanted to take it off me as it was a funny colour, being the deep red/brown of fresh tuna, rather than cooked tuna-in-a-tin colour
I seem to be the exact opposite to you. I enjoyed good food when my mum made it for me but when I left home I was out every night and I either ate out or got a takeaway. I used to get a Christmas card from the local curry house. My diet must have been rubbish
Now I cook nearly everything from scratch. And I mean scratch. I make my own bread, pickles, marmalade, etc. I grow a lot of fruit in the garden. So on Friday we entertained. I cooked all day. I made a goulash with dumplings, a granary loaf and red cabbage braised with apples, onions, spices, sultanas and vinegar. followed by a medlar and custard tart and a damson crumble. The damsons are from the garden and not served with sugar so are really tart and the topping is made with oats, wholemeal flour, butter and molasses so is really rich. The medlars I picked in November and after bleating I turned half into a paste for tarts and half into a jelly for cheese. The pastry and custard were also homemade.
I really enjoy cooking, but it is really rustic stuff. I can't do pretty.
To get back on topic, I’d like it noted that my ferocious new consumption regimen - sporadic fasting, calorific deficit, restricted booze intake - is having an effect. I have lost almost 10kg in 6 weeks
No doubt experts will say that is too fast but wow it is fast. I can face myself in the mirror. I can see RIBS
I am about 5kg from my target weight. Then - god willing - I will have FINALLY lost all the Covid blob and be back to where I was from 2005-2020
I'm down 4kg since Christmas - no booze, 40 mins light cardio every day, desire to binge eat gone when I'm not drunk / hungover.
Watch me put it all back on next month...
Dude. Bro. Mate. Well done!!
Don’t stop now. It’s all worth it. I suggest we team up together and egg each other on. I am determined to hit my target weight by Feb 8th (when I’m flying again probably). That gives me 3 weeks to lose about 5kg. Do-able!!
Let’s be weight watcher buddies
Pb weight watchers is on!
For me it's entirely about skipping the wine in the evenings (600 calories)
From that, I have less desire to snack (another 400 calories) plus more energy in the week for light cardio.
Considered ozempic but I just had to drop the wine...
It’s a deal
Let’s make it an official PB Lard-Shifters target. It will motivate me
I want to make 82kg by Feb 8th. I am now 87.5kg. It’s a reach but then better to set a hard target and miss it by a bit, than one that is easily done and just means this drags on
What’s your aim?
You're 4kg lighter than me. I'm 6'2" and fairly fit. Are you sure you really need to lose weight?
Yes, unfortunately
I’m just under 6 foot (yes yes, all men say that, but it is the case)
The BMI says I should be 80kg or under, however in my experience that is too light for me. I have a rugby forward’s physique. Barrel chested. Solid. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT
So I start to look quite weird and pathetic if I go much under 80kg, I bottomed out at 74kg in about 2015 and I didn’t look better, in photos I look a tad scrawny
80-82kg is my ideal spot, I think. I also don’t want to get Ozempic Face when you lose so much weight, so fast, your entire face collapses
BTW did anyone find out if that’s what happened to Boris? His weight loss was shockingly fast, and definitely aged him
My biggest issue is that I've got no legs. well, I do, obvs, but they're short for my body size. An ex-gf who was the best part of a foot shorter than me had the same-length legs.
That makes me sound rather odd, doesn't it? But it also means that my torso is rather long, and therefore heavier than usual.
But I'd also mention mental happiness: IMV its better to be four or five kilos off your 'ideal' weight and happy, rather than at your ideal weight and constantly stressing about it, or going on faddy diets.
TBH, some of the most content people I know are overweight.
It makes all those long-distance runs, with your little legs, even more impressive.
Thanks, but I run slowly, for that reason. And they're not quite *that* short.
It also means that when swimming, I float really well as my body's so long. Either that, or it's the blubber....
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
...and universal education and the privatised care home crisis, but, and paraphrasing Liam Byrne there really is no money left.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
There was a mug
Many mugs, in fact: anyone who believed New Labour was a mug.
I may be a mug, but I'd return the rum bunch in a heartbeat after your utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers.
You have no business complaining about any Government prior to 2019 after you voted for this set of outrageous clown-cowboys.
*My* utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers? I think you give me a bit more power than I have.You seem to be under this strange misapprehension that I'm a Tory.
I didn't vote Tory in 2019. I've never voted for Boris, and won't be voting Tory at the next GE. But your sort of attitude might push me away from Labour and towards the Lib Dems.
(Traditionally, the cry has been: "We don't need your vote!")
How very dare you! I am no socialist. Please vote LibDem they rock. They are the New Labour replacement party.
Except they run my local council and, frankly, they're a bit pants...
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
The Iranians also struck targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as Pakistan.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
The Iranians also struck targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as Pakistan.
There's thing I've seen, time and time again, with failing startups.
There is this one feature that's missing from the product, and once it is delivered, people will flock to it, and the business will be saved. It's some kind of technical Hail Mary, and the entire management team is bought into the cult of the One Killer Feature.
And what happens is that the killer feature is added, and maybe the needle moves a little bit, but the business is not saved.
Successful businesses iterate. They take what they have, and every day they make it a little bit better.
The current government is a failing startup. And Rwanda is their Hail Mary.
Instead of governing well, and improving everything a little every day, they have invested all their metaphorical eggs in a policy to send a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda so they can claim asylum there.
I agree to an extent, but if you look at this as 'ground battle' (the incremental improvements of which you speak) and 'air battle' (Rwanda) it makes more sense. Currently, we rate highly on the attractiveness scale to inward economic migration of a type we don't want, with asylum claims the most common method. Our system of benefits to look after such people is quite attractive, and key is that you are 3 times more likely to be granted asylum in the UK than you are in France, and even if refused you're not guaranteed to be deported. Yes, the Government should be tackling all this - cracking down on the gangs, speeding the process of deportation, eliminating the loophole provided by Theresa May's modern slavery laws, speeding up the asylum review process, tightening up the judging criteria to ensure a more 'France-like' balance of claims accepted and rejected, BUT each step here is flipping hard, and will be fought tooth and nail by the Home Office, the left-wing media, and horrified 'proudly-woke' Tory grandees like Theresa and George Osborne.
Alternatively, you can aim at dropping the equivalent of an atomic bomb on the problem and hope that does it. That bomb is Rwanda.
No, "the bomb" is an excuse for not doing any of the incremental things.
Because this is the thing with "killer features"; they never have the impact you think they will.
You've already identified migrants as economically rational: they come to the UK because it makes economic sense to do so. How do you think that calculation changes if there's a 2% chance they get shipped off to Rwanda? (And 2% is probably generous.)
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
...and universal education and the privatised care home crisis, but, and paraphrasing Liam Byrne there really is no money left.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
There was a mug
Many mugs, in fact: anyone who believed New Labour was a mug.
I may be a mug, but I'd return the rum bunch in a heartbeat after your utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers.
You have no business complaining about any Government prior to 2019 after you voted for this set of outrageous clown-cowboys.
*My* utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers? I think you give me a bit more power than I have.You seem to be under this strange misapprehension that I'm a Tory.
I didn't vote Tory in 2019. I've never voted for Boris, and won't be voting Tory at the next GE. But your sort of attitude might push me away from Labour and towards the Lib Dems.
(Traditionally, the cry has been: "We don't need your vote!")
How very dare you! I am no socialist. Please vote LibDem they rock. They are the New Labour replacement party.
Except they run my local council and, frankly, they're a bit pants...
If they are just 'a bit pants' that sounds like a really positive endorsement in the current environment.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
The Iranians also struck targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as Pakistan.
Hadn't heard about Syria. Which targets?
Monday night also saw the IRGC launch ballistic missiles at what it said were the bases of Islamic State (IS) group and "terrorist groups" in Syria's north-western province of Idlib.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
So to be clear: you are willing to see Houthis massacre people in Yemen, and for Houthis to kill poorly-paid Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian on ships? You are willing for the poor to get shafted in this country by higher interest rates because the Red Sea's been closed? You pretend to care for the poor, but actually don't give a shit about them?
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
Morality is variations of the trolley problem. And I am increasingly annoyed at the knee jerk belief that the lives and comfort of those in the West somehow matter more than lives elsewhere. If the Houthi's actions in the Red Sea make goods here more expensive, then the government has the option to react - it won't because it doesn't care about the British poor. I would prefer innocent people not be killed anywhere, but why should it be fine for Gazans to die and not anyone else? Do Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi poor only matter when they're shifting goods for the profit of multinationals and the comfort of Western consumers? If we're all going to be hypocrites, which we are, I may as well be an honest one.
There is no end to this issue, or making sense of it.
It is an unargued point in the modern western world that states have duties towards their own citizens which can and do override duties and responsibilities to others, and are much greater than those duties.
In the west vast numbers of people of all backgrounds and at all levels care very much about Gazans. On a scale of 1-100 I would put it at about 80. But by comparison there is Sudan, where the general concern on the same scale is close to Zero. The fighting and destruction, ethnic cleansing and displacement in Sudan is much greater than in Gaza. Why does the media and the political class not care at all?
Why do we speak so much about the numbers of refugees in small boats in the west, such as the UK, when Chad, Uganda, Turkey, Bangladesh have so many more and are completely ignored here?
Yes, it's interesting to consider which places we tend to care about or not care about. But where ethnic cleansing is actively supported by our government (as in Gaza) this does add to its salience here, I think.
Tata are apparently talking about replacing them with an electric arc furnace. I'll believe that when I see it.
My business partner was a senior Manager at Port Talbot and he has been telling me for a year or two that this was on the cards. I would be surprised if the arc furnaces don't happen, although if one considers Tata bought the plant from Corus for the blast furnace capacity, you may have a point.
Apart from the gung-ho attitude of a couple of their junior investigators, the Post Office witnesses so far have mostly demonstrated incompetence, blind loyalty, a touch of idiocy (yes, you, Mr Singh) mixed with a generous dose of amnesia. Whereas it looks like the Fujitsu team boss was really out to crush the subpostmasters.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
During the pandemic people got housed, because it was necessary. It shows that, in many ways, homelessness is a policy choice - because people in government would rather see people suffer then put a roof over their head.
We've had more and more studies showing that homeless people tend to be people who slipped down a long path - precarious work, losing that job, moved to not being able to afford rent to living in their car, to not being able to hold down a job and keeping their car etc. etc. The recent study in Canada, where homeless people were given a few months of wages ($7,500 CaD) saw most of them able to steady themselves - and that it was overall cheaper than other interventions cost.
After what you said the other day about the Houthi's, I have grave reservations about any plans you have to improve the lot of the poor...
I've stopped giving a shit about acting like so many people here that 30,000 dead Palestinians don't matter. If the Houthi's are willing to fuck up world commerce to do something about it, so be it.
So to be clear: you are willing to see Houthis massacre people in Yemen, and for Houthis to kill poorly-paid Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian on ships? You are willing for the poor to get shafted in this country by higher interest rates because the Red Sea's been closed? You pretend to care for the poor, but actually don't give a shit about them?
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
Morality is variations of the trolley problem. And I am increasingly annoyed at the knee jerk belief that the lives and comfort of those in the West somehow matter more than lives elsewhere. If the Houthi's actions in the Red Sea make goods here more expensive, then the government has the option to react - it won't because it doesn't care about the British poor. I would prefer innocent people not be killed anywhere, but why should it be fine for Gazans to die and not anyone else? Do Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi poor only matter when they're shifting goods for the profit of multinationals and the comfort of Western consumers? If we're all going to be hypocrites, which we are, I may as well be an honest one.
You suggest, "If the Houthi's [sic] actions in the Red Sea make goods here more expensive, then the government has the option to react - it won't because it doesn't care about the British poor." That seems wrong. The UK government has reacted and it is reacting precisely because it is concerned about the impact of global trade and that contributing to inflation.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
The Iranians also struck targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as Pakistan.
Hadn't heard about Syria. Which targets?
Monday night also saw the IRGC launch ballistic missiles at what it said were the bases of Islamic State (IS) group and "terrorist groups" in Syria's north-western province of Idlib.
So basically they're hitting lots of targets that happen to be aligned to people not in the good books of Russia?
(Although if Russia is behind it, the Hamas assault on Israel was extremely stupid given Israel was one of the few major nations not to be unreservedly condemning its attacks on Ukraine.)
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Three eternal bipartisan failures of British government - in fact the whole political class:
- immigration - housing - productivity.
If they could address those three, I wouldn't care at all who parties with whom against the rules or whether somebody looks at dirty pictures at work or whatever trivialities the press focus on.
And food. Food security (and balance of payments).
They are all interdependent.
...and universal education and the privatised care home crisis, but, and paraphrasing Liam Byrne there really is no money left.
Reform could actually overtake the Tories. Esp if they get Nige on the case
Conversation at primary school door this morning from normally apolitical friend: "we [the school] has gone from less than 5% English as a foreign language to around 25%. You wouldn't think it would happen with a Tory government, would you?" I don't think this was a furious rant against immigration, more an expression of astonishment that the Tories of all people were letting what feels like such massive numbers into the country.
One lad has started this week. On Saturday, he was in Saudi Arabia; on Tuesday he saw his first ever snow. Anecdotally, he is frighteningly obedient and somewhat baffled when 'stop talking and get on with your work' isn't instantly complied with by everyone as multiple 9-year-old conversations are sotto voce brought to a close.
Immigration is going to overwhelm most polities in the west, sending them to the hard or far right
Britain will follow, with a delay
Anyone with eyes can see this. A tipping point is being reached - from Stockholm to Berlin, from Arizona to Warsaw to Rome
I'd rephrase slightly. The far right thrive on 'our country is being swamped and ruined by immigrants' sentiment. Therefore anyone with eyes can see the risk of feeding that sentiment.
Oh do be quiet
This country has imported 1.3 million people in two years. Voters are noticing. See @Cookie’s comments above
This level of immigration is literally unprecedented in our history. It has never happened before. People didn’t ask for it, polls show they don’t want it, Brexit was driven - in large part - by people trying to stop it
And your pitiful answer to all this is “just stop talking about it”
I'm not saying stop talking about it. That would be you with your "do be quiet".
Why does immigration being a genuine issue mean people should be able to bang on unchallenged about how we have to embrace far right talking points or they'll end up in power?
I don’t even understand your points any more. I believe the technical description of your commentary is, in PB terms, “vapid bilge”
Really? I didn't think I was being obtuse. The far right thrive on anti-immigrant sentiment. Their agenda is to exploit the (genuine) issue of immigration to increase this sentiment amongst the public. You agree with that, I'd have thought?
And it's relevant to a discussion on immigration. Why wouldn't it be? You yourself were just highlighting the risk of the far right surfing to power on the back of anti-immigrant sentiment. Ok, so I quibbled with your wording. You said the far right were certain to triumph, which is hyperbole, so I replaced with "risk".
That's a bit clearer now, I hope. So what's your point anyway?
Does it not follow that if your overwhelming concern is the rise of the far right, you ought to want immigration to be as low as possible?
No that doesn't follow. Low as possible means none. Nativist Fortress Britain. It makes little sense to try and ward off the far right by embracing their goals.
Low immigration is a moderate position that used to be shared by every party in this country.
The goal of the far right in Europe is increasingly becoming repatration on a massive scale. From their perspective, further high levels of immigration might actually be welcome in the short term because it will help them gain power.
I think almost everyone agrees that the levels of the last couple of years aren't sustainable. But let's tackle the issue without giving succour to far right rhetoric, goals, or talking points.
I find it amusing to see many still saying "we need to talk about immigration - it's not racist to do so, and we mustn't be silenced".
Nobody seems to talk about anything fucking else at the moment.
We are where we are because having elected government after government that promised to reduce immigration, all they've done is increase it.
Yes, though I'd replace the word 'elected' with 'Tory'. It started with Cameron and the 'tens of thousands' stuff. I don't recall Labour 1997-2010 talking much about reducing immigration.
The government Monday proposed tighter immigration controls and said only skilled workers who speak English would be allowed to settle in Britain permanently.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government also would fingerprint all foreigners applying for visas to stop them from remaining in Britain once their permits expire.
There was a mug
Many mugs, in fact: anyone who believed New Labour was a mug.
I may be a mug, but I'd return the rum bunch in a heartbeat after your utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers.
You have no business complaining about any Government prior to 2019 after you voted for this set of outrageous clown-cowboys.
*My* utterly incompetent corrupt sharks and chancers? I think you give me a bit more power than I have.You seem to be under this strange misapprehension that I'm a Tory.
I didn't vote Tory in 2019. I've never voted for Boris, and won't be voting Tory at the next GE. But your sort of attitude might push me away from Labour and towards the Lib Dems.
(Traditionally, the cry has been: "We don't need your vote!")
How very dare you! I am no socialist. Please vote LibDem they rock. They are the New Labour replacement party.
Except they run my local council and, frankly, they're a bit pants...
If they are just 'a bit pants' that sounds like a really positive endorsement in the current environment.
An improvement on Mone and her husband, who are a pair of knickers.
Gordon Brown asked by Sky on whether he will do a Cameron-style comeback: “I’m too old to be a British politician and too young to be an American politician.”
Our system of benefits to look after such people is quite attractive, and key is that you are 3 times more likely to be granted asylum in the UK than you are in France
Is this a like-for-like comparison? Maybe you are 3 times more likely to be granted asylum in the UK because the people coming to the UK are different?
The UK is at the end of a journey. The people who make the extra effort to come to the UK rather than staying in France may not compare with all the people who come into France.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
Independence is indeed a strong and positive word, but it's also a pretty vague one. Virtually everyone likes to be independent, in one sense or another. And that's why it's a pretty poor choice of word for use in a constitutional referendum, without at least that wording being put into context in the question.
Apart from the gung-ho attitude of a couple of their junior investigators, the Post Office witnesses so far have mostly demonstrated incompetence, blind loyalty, a touch of idiocy (yes, you, Mr Singh) mixed with a generous dose of amnesia. Whereas it looks like the Fujitsu team boss was really out to crush the subpostmasters.
Yes, it's looking like that.
This is not going to do their share price any good. They need to write out some very large cheques to back up the apologies.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
The Iranians also struck targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as Pakistan.
Hadn't heard about Syria. Which targets?
Monday night also saw the IRGC launch ballistic missiles at what it said were the bases of Islamic State (IS) group and "terrorist groups" in Syria's north-western province of Idlib.
So basically they're hitting lots of targets that happen to be aligned to people not in the good books of Russia?
(Although if Russia is behind it, the Hamas assault on Israel was extremely stupid given Israel was one of the few major nations not to be unreservedly condemning its attacks on Ukraine.)
It succeeded in keeping Ukraine out of the headlines for a few weeks though, and the totally organic, not organised at all protests across the West in favour of the terrorists have been a serious distraction to policymakers.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
It'll also lose then support of people who want 'Scotland to get their say' but remain as part of the UK (pensions, innit).
They'd be wise not to do that.
Independence is a strong and positive word. The Brexit/Sindy comparison is overdone but I think there's relevance here. Both Farage and Johnson sounded the clarion "Let June 23 be our Independence Day!" and I remember at time thinking, oh god, what utter bastards, that's seductive.
And - pls note - that is despite it being a load of bollox in that case since the UK was already a sovereign independent state as an EU member. So imagine its power when it's actually true. I don't know if such a rebadge (N to I) is on the cards but it might be worth considering.
Independence is indeed a strong and positive word, but it's also a pretty vague one. Virtually everyone likes to be independent, in one sense or another. And that's why it's a pretty poor choice of word for use in a constitutional referendum, without at least that wording being put into context in the question.
"Should Scotland remain part of the United Kingdom: Yes/No"
Although it's getting the Referendum rather than its precise wording that's more the issue for Scotland atm.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
Thank you for that edifying contribution to the discussion of the complicated problems we are faced with.
Anytime. At least I'm not cheering on the Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea. Are you cheering that on?
The Iranians are acting very strangely at the moment. Gaza. The Houthi strikes in the Red Sea. Direct assault on Pakistan.
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
The Iranians also struck targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as Pakistan.
Hadn't heard about Syria. Which targets?
Monday night also saw the IRGC launch ballistic missiles at what it said were the bases of Islamic State (IS) group and "terrorist groups" in Syria's north-western province of Idlib.
So basically they're hitting lots of targets that happen to be aligned to people not in the good books of Russia?
(Although if Russia is behind it, the Hamas assault on Israel was extremely stupid given Israel was one of the few major nations not to be unreservedly condemning its attacks on Ukraine.)
It succeeded in keeping Ukraine out of the headlines for a few weeks though, and the totally organic, not organised at all protests across the West in favour of the terrorists have been a serious distraction to policymakers.
And the US Congress could easily have been prompted into a question of whether it should support Israel or Ukraine, as if it's an either-or. It still might be. Breaking off US support for Ukraine is a critical Kremlin objective; giving it a distraction to support a country it feels emotionally closer to is one way that might be achieved. However, Netenyahu has gone in so hard that such sympathy as there was has rapidly eroded. But, as you say, that's then created the issue of 'pro-Gaza' protests.
I listened to Yousaf on R4 this morning. He came over well imo.
Softening up the supporters for a rebadging of SNP to Scottish Independence Party, no doubt. Ultimately becoming ostensibly a new party that can distance itself from the police investigation into the party known as the SNP
Maybe a better name in fact. More precisely accurate.
SNIP more like, The Scottish Not Independence Party
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
That was never ever the case and never ever will be. Why do you think there was so much solcial housing back then.
That’ll not go down well in the US, that nice Mr Biden was saying quite the opposite very recently.
Few western governments say it so openly but it remains the technical position of most. Including Taiwan, for that matter, which notionally claims to be the government of all China, in exile from the mainland. They've never formally declared independence, for all the de facto-ism of their situation.
That said, Varadkar is giving a masterclass example here in how China is leveraging its money, investments and influence.
The attitude of both China and Taiwan on this question is very telling about how they see nationhood there: as an ethnic concept. Also nb how China seems to view anyone of Chinese ethnicity no matter their national citizenship as "Chinese" and fair game to be spied on.
Contrast with the USA, which never claimed to be the real Britain in exile but was happy to be a separate country despite sharing the same ancestry as the parent nation. Or the Gulf Arab states which seem to view statehood through the prism of the ruling royal family rather than ethnicity.
It also affects how they see the rest of the world too. From China's perspective, Australians are still British.
Especially after AUKUS
And, basically, they are right. The world is dividing into a multipolar place: two military superpowers in: the Anglosphere (AUKUS plus NZ and Canada and a couple of smaller countries, not fucking Ireland, fuck them), and China, and Russia sort-of but declining
Add in the EU and India and you have the five pillars of the world for the next few decades. The era of hegemony - for anyone - is gone
With the Royal Navy in its current state, there is no way we are fighting a naval war in the Pacific. We don't have enough ships and people. We can (I think) still claim to be a blue water navy and fight in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, but Pacific or Indian Oceans? Not sure about that. IIRC, we offered to provide a ship in US Pacific exercises and after some giggling they turned us down.
AUKUS was just a glorified arms sale. Boris spun it as some kind of military alliance because he needed to brighten up his MPs' afternoon when things were looking a bit glum post-Brexit.
No, that’s entirely wrong (and unsurprisingly so, from you, are you now so old you are demented? That is a sincere question and not meant unkindly)
AUKUS is a deeply serious new venture. It is the USA going beyond NATO and imagining a post NATO world when Russia is no longer a threat - or, when Russia is only a threat to Western Europe which, quite frankly, is easily rich enough to defend itself (Trump is merely willing to say out loud what a lot of Americans think in silence). AUKUS is obviously aimed at China (and maybe even India, eventually)
The eventual concept must be AUKUS plus NZ and Canada, the Five Eyes, all English speaking, with English Common Law, and with four of them actually with the same head of state - the British monarch. That is a potent global alliance which has a very good chance of running the world for another century, whatever China does
After that, Aliens
I've got news for you son, we're already here - and we're having great fun messing around with your Earth planet.
Oh, you're here as well. Me and Leon are from Planet ShortLeggedBlokes. You can always tell us from the Humans, because our d*cks brush the floor....
There's thing I've seen, time and time again, with failing startups.
There is this one feature that's missing from the product, and once it is delivered, people will flock to it, and the business will be saved. It's some kind of technical Hail Mary, and the entire management team is bought into the cult of the One Killer Feature.
And what happens is that the killer feature is added, and maybe the needle moves a little bit, but the business is not saved.
Successful businesses iterate. They take what they have, and every day they make it a little bit better.
The current government is a failing startup. And Rwanda is their Hail Mary.
Instead of governing well, and improving everything a little every day, they have invested all their metaphorical eggs in a policy to send a small proportion of asylum seekers to Rwanda so they can claim asylum there.
I agree to an extent, but if you look at this as 'ground battle' (the incremental improvements of which you speak) and 'air battle' (Rwanda) it makes more sense. Currently, we rate highly on the attractiveness scale to inward economic migration of a type we don't want, with asylum claims the most common method. Our system of benefits to look after such people is quite attractive, and key is that you are 3 times more likely to be granted asylum in the UK than you are in France, and even if refused you're not guaranteed to be deported. Yes, the Government should be tackling all this - cracking down on the gangs, speeding the process of deportation, eliminating the loophole provided by Theresa May's modern slavery laws, speeding up the asylum review process, tightening up the judging criteria to ensure a more 'France-like' balance of claims accepted and rejected, BUT each step here is flipping hard, and will be fought tooth and nail by the Home Office, the left-wing media, and horrified 'proudly-woke' Tory grandees like Theresa and George Osborne.
Alternatively, you can aim at dropping the equivalent of an atomic bomb on the problem and hope that does it. That bomb is Rwanda.
No, "the bomb" is an excuse for not doing any of the incremental things.
Because this is the thing with "killer features"; they never have the impact you think they will.
You've already identified migrants as economically rational: they come to the UK because it makes economic sense to do so. How do you think that calculation changes if there's a 2% chance they get shipped off to Rwanda? (And 2% is probably generous.)
It's not a 2% chance, it's a 100% chance for a short time span. And if nobody wants to be the initial cannon fodder so everybody else can overrun the ramparts, it should work. It's at least worth assessing the impact.
As for the incremental things, you saw the national scandal when Jenrick even tried to get some Mickey Mouse murals painted over. Yes they should be done, but don't pretend they're easy.
Curious @malcolmg in your turnip-world what homeless people are supposed to be eating in your hypothetical shortage?
Ensuring people have a roof of their own over their head eases problems and builds resilience.
In your fantasy view it would be bricks or concrete. In mine it would home grown produce. Provided by charities as now in both instances. If they had a roof over their head then their would be no homeless, just starving.
We have rampant homelessness in this country. Real, already.
Homelessness of course includes those who lack a permanent home of their own, not just rough sleepers.
There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in England. Because we don't have enough bloody homes!
So no in my "fantasy view" there'd still be plenty of food grown in this country, but not just in this country - which is already the case.
And if people weren't wasting most of their money on housing due to the chronic shortage that is devastating people's livelihoods in this country, they'd be able to ensure they have well stocked and good quality food in their cupboards/fridges/freezers etc
Free houses for all now , it gets better and better.
Who said anything about free?
But they absolutely should be more affordable. People are spending a higher percentage of their income on housing than ever before, which if you own your own home rent-free and mortgage-free then you are simply completely ignorant about the situation others face.
If house prices relative to incomes came down by about 75% that'd be a good start and bring us back in line with how they used to be and comparable to the decline in food costs over the past half a century.
Absolutely everyone who works full time should be able to afford to own their own home, even on minimum wage.
That was never ever the case and never ever will be. Why do you think there was so much solcial housing back then.
Because many people were, despite working, poor on what would seem a third world level, today.
Interesting NBC polling of the Iowa Republican caucus goers. Only 71% of them will vote for Trump if he is their candidate. Those who voted Haley are especially down on him.
11% would vote Biden.
Also, 31% think he is not fit to be the candidate if convicted of a felony.
These are awful numbers for Trump. Plenty of Republicans won't vote MAGA.
Were they actual Republicans though? There were suggestions that Democrats were gatecrashing the GOP caucuses in the absence of their own and in a forlorn attempt to stop Trump.
There is always an element of that. Maximum 11% of Democrat interlopers though (those who'd vote Biden).
But the turnout was low - and even acknowledging the weather was horrific, the enthusiasm for Trump was not overwhelming.
The game is over for Trump if he gets a conviction as a felon before November. Interesting to see how many still peel away next month when he's clearly a fraudster in a civil case that awards the state of New York hundreds of millions in disgorgement for cooking the books. When found guilty of fraud, is the civil/criminal distinction going to be that important?
Every reference by the Democrats to Trump is going to be preceded by "fraudster".
I genuinely hope that you are right Mark and that I am wrong but so far all of Trump's many, many reverses in various courts, both criminal and civil seem to consolidated his support rather than ending it.
Can you think of any politician in this country whose career would survive a finding that he had sexually assaulted a woman? Or that he was guilty of large scale fraud (that has already been determined, the court in the present case is simply determining the penalties), or that he was guilty or insurrection and therefore not eligible for office?
For his supporters, these findings are simply evidence that the liberal establishment are out to get their man by fair means or foul. And, sadly, there is the smallest whiff of truth in that. The hope has to be that the independents vote for not Trump in sufficient numbers to defeat him. Again. But so far the polling is alarming.
Trump is about to be at the very sharp end of the judicial system. First in the civil courts; then in the criminal courts that lead to jail. Sure there have been previous cases he has shrugged off. But he isn't going to shrug off these.
First, he will be hit with tens of millions for defamation. The same damages expert that got Rudy Giuliani hit for $148m is going to be hitting Trump too. And Trump keeps defaming her in his social media, day after day. It's his personal cash getting bled. Melania has reportedly renegotiated her pre-nup - she is incredibly angry that her son's inheritance is being pissed up a wall. The visible contempt for her husband is the subject of multiple video clips. Be surprised if the marriage survives beyond November.
The New York case will demolish Trump's schtick of being this great businessman. His property empire has engaged in serial fraud that has allowed him to get significantly lower interest rates not available to the average voter, especially those who have been struggling to keep their business afloat. He has cooked the books. For years. This is a matter of record, not something dreamt up by Joe Biden. He can scream about being a victim as much as he likes. But this is HIS doing - and it will undermine his claim to be fit to be President. "Would you let a fraudster run the country?" is a powerful message not available in 2020.
Then there are the criminal cases. Bear in mind here that the prosecutors have been serially turning his close inner circle, those wise enough not to go to jail for Trump. Their evidence will be damning. The story around January 6th will be that he stoked insurrection. The story around stealing the election will be that he was at the centre of the scam of alternate electors. The story around his taking away top secret documents for his personal trading chips will be damning.
None of these issues are getting him new voters. Many will be more determined to turn out to ensure he is nowhere near office ever again. But each court case will chip away some of his core vote.
We have a tendency to caricature the Trump vote as all being thick as pig shit; but many are more nuanced in their balancing Trump versus Biden. As the US economy looks stronger - especially inflation sharply down, stock market highs and record job creation - Biden's legacy for the past four years is coming good at just the right time. The number prepared to throw their lot in with Trump will start to turn down. Catastrophically so when he is in the orange jumpsuit of a federal penitentiary.
Let me give you an opposite view.
Firstly, for Trump supporters, their support is all around identity. This article gets it right:
HIs support is, as the article notes, akin to the feelings people have for their favourite sports team or even singer (try and criticise Taylor Swift and see the wrath you get from the Swifties for example). Telling them they are thick, which many US commentators and many on here like to do when they sneer just has the opposite effect - it reinforces their support.
Then you have the point that - for many people - Trump also got it right on many of his actions and views (which is my view as well). This is Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan making this point yesterday.
Now, on his court cases, you may be right but I think you are wrong (and I am surprised that DavidL, as a legal practitioner, stated as a fact Trump was guilty of sexual assault given that was a civil trial, not a judicial one).
1. On his NY property lawsuit case, as @Dura_Ace said, he will just appeal. In any event, even as the FT has said (https://on.ft.com/3Q5IFGa), Trump's basic point that valuation is an art not a science is right. There is a good chance a judge at least at one level will accept that argument. There is also not the small issue that ruling that a valuation is potentially liable to be deemed fraudulent has major implications for the US financial industry.
2. On his defamation case, again he will just appeal and kick it into touch. The logic of the Manhattan jury was, in any event, bizarre - they convicted him of everything else bar the rape charge (i.e. we believe Jean Carroll in everything she says except we think - even on a balance of probability - she wasn't telling the truth about the rape charge).
3. On the criminal charges, the documents case in FLorida will get delayed post-the election. The Georgia case, as I highlighted a few days back, is blowing up in spectacular fashion as the DA now faces a potential criminal investigation for not disclosing she hired her (alleged) lover as a special prosecutor even though he had no experience. And Jack Smith, in the Washington DC case, is not doing well in trying to get the trial expedited.
The Democrats - and those who hate Trump - will do well to focus their energies and attention of working out how to defeat him at the ballot box instead of increasing looking, to more parts of the population, that they are trying anything and everything to get Trump out of the contest.
1) That completely misses the point. It's not about valuation being an art or a science. It's about giving wildly different valuations to different people for different purposes at the same time on the same assets. Which is clearly fraud, even if one of them is right. And he has, in fact, not been able to contest that he did it which is why he's been found guilty.
2) He can appeal the damages, but not the verdict. So that will stand.
3) The documents case probably will be delayed, but that's not necessarily to his advantage for other reasons (although that's irrelevant to your point). You are wrong about the potential criminal investigation and simply quoting Fox News. It is possible she may have to resign. However, that only deals with one of the three special prosecutors and he's probably being attacked because he's black anyway. Jack Smith is having some trouble pushing forward but not as much as you or Trump would like. The case may not go ahead in March but the Supreme Court is unlikely to be able to delay it for a whole year.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks
You give a shit about one thing, and that one thing has become such a matter of insane righteousness to you that you don't give a shit about other outrages, even those by the people you now support?
Also, what's the plan for "doing something about" the c. 300,000 dead Yemenis that have resulted from the civil war the Houthis started ten years ago and is still ongoing?
You can't have "stopped giving a shit" about them if you never started...
I was brought up on such basic stuff as mince and tatties, swede and potato soup with shank of lamb ( calling @malcolmg - great stuff), and clootie dumpling, and still have my granny's then mother's recipe book. Though the dog got the boiled sheep's head.
Those were absolutely basic dishes you'd find in most families. Even stuff like fish fingers which came in in the 1950s and 60s wasn't that processed, ditto frozen peas. Ultraprocessed stuff wasn't that commn - CHorleywood bread was perhaps the most significant. Ice cream was from the local Italian family. No deep fat fryers closer than the chippie. You used a saucepan but the faff meant an occasional treat with a fillet of fish from the fish shop.
I found myself replicating such things at uni - as well as the other experimental stuff that you did. Still have mince and potatoes and some veg when we can get some decent mince.
But them schools taught cookery in those days and had the failities for 'domestic science'.
In the New York Civil Case (which is a Jury assessing damages to go to the woman Trump has already been found to have raped / sexually abused) already has the unusual measure of an anonymous Jury whom the Judge has instructed to use false names in the jury room, not engage in personal conversation, and not to identify their role to their families.
You have no business complaining about any Government prior to 2019 after you voted for this set of outrageous clown-cowboys.
He was a very skilled cook, but an utter drunkard on shore.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-wales-67337692
That's a disaster for Port Talbot's economy.
Tata are apparently talking about replacing them with an electric arc furnace. I'll believe that when I see it.
Alternatively, you can aim at dropping the equivalent of an atomic bomb on the problem and hope that does it. That bomb is Rwanda.
I didn't vote Tory in 2019. I've never voted for Boris, and won't be voting Tory at the next GE. But your sort of attitude might push me away from Labour and towards the Lib Dems.
(Traditionally, the cry has been: "We don't need your vote!")
Basics are all good too, done well with good ingredients. That was the biggest revelation for me. Bit of decent fish or steak, well cooked, with good quality well cooked veg and a bit of butter/few herbs and it's all you need, sometimes.
We did have home ecnomics (or 'food tech', I think it was) at school, but mostly on the theory and science rather than the actual doing. I do remember being blown away after making fresh bread rolls at school, compared to the shop-bought stuff (but that was after several weeks of learning how flour is produced, what gluten is etc and how yeast works - all very interesting, but not essential for the actual making).
The government is reacting to the Red Sea problems - perhaps it is not enough, or the wrong reaction, but it is not being ignored - and attitudes like yours make it harder for them to do anything.
You pretend to be moral. You may even think you are moral. But you are so far down in the abyss, swimming amongst the filth, that you are willing to support the Houthis because you believe (wrongly) that they are supporting the Palestinians.
You are the hypocrite. You are the supporter of, and sympathiser with, an evil force. You do not care about the poor.
It is an unargued point in the modern western world that states have duties towards their own citizens which can and do override duties and responsibilities to others, and are much greater than those duties.
In the west vast numbers of people of all backgrounds and at all levels care very much about Gazans. On a scale of 1-100 I would put it at about 80. But by comparison there is Sudan, where the general concern on the same scale is close to Zero. The fighting and destruction, ethnic cleansing and displacement in Sudan is much greater than in Gaza. Why does the media and the political class not care at all?
Why do we speak so much about the numbers of refugees in small boats in the west, such as the UK, when Chad, Uganda, Turkey, Bangladesh have so many more and are completely ignored here?
The husband of Tory peer Michelle Mone is connected to a company that tax experts say should be investigated for fraud, BBC Newsnight has found.
Doug Barrowman has previously denied involvement in Vanquish Options, a firm that falsely claimed customers could write off money owed to the government.
But BBC News has identified Vanquish bosses with links to Mr Barrowman and seen emails sent by Vanquish from the same IP address as his Isle of Man HQ.
Mr Barrowman has denied any wrongdoing.
Tax experts suggest there are grounds to open a criminal investigation into Vanquish Options.
One of Mr Barrowman's firms, PPE MedPro, is already being investigated by the National Crime Agency over contracts worth more than £200m to supply PPE to the NHS during the Covid-19 pandemic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68016824
Apart from that, it's perfect.
“See you in court then, Fetters Lane where they used to hang people out to dry. I don’t suppose that type of thing happens any more though. That Castleton is a nasty chap and will be all out to rubbish the FJ name, it’s up to you to maintain absolute strength and integrity no matter what the prosecution throw at you, WE will all be behind you hoping you come through unscathed. Bless you.”
About 54 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0szE92MsZA
Is this just a government led by a bunch of unstable chancers lashing out as they see their key allies struggle in Ukraine, their big rival Turkey put one over them in Azerbaijan with the recapture and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh and their people grow restless at the constant brutality, corruption and incompetence? Or is there something even more sinister behind it?
Unfortunately for Russia, there's also the non-negligable chance that it'll just increase the west's defence spending, something that was decreasing nicely (from Russia's POV), and which has already started to reverse thanks to their ill-advised adventures.
Now I cook nearly everything from scratch. And I mean scratch. I make my own bread, pickles, marmalade, etc. I grow a lot of fruit in the garden. So on Friday we entertained. I cooked all day. I made a goulash with dumplings, a granary loaf and red cabbage braised with apples, onions, spices, sultanas and vinegar. followed by a medlar and custard tart and a damson crumble. The damsons are from the garden and not served with sugar so are really tart and the topping is made with oats, wholemeal flour, butter and molasses so is really rich. The medlars I picked in November and after bleating I turned half into a paste for tarts and half into a jelly for cheese. The pastry and custard were also homemade.
I really enjoy cooking, but it is really rustic stuff. I can't do pretty.
It also means that when swimming, I float really well as my body's so long. Either that, or it's the blubber....
"Why India is sending three warships to the Arabian Sea"
Because this is the thing with "killer features"; they never have the impact you think they will.
You've already identified migrants as economically rational: they come to the UK because it makes economic sense to do so. How do you think that calculation changes if there's a 2% chance they get shipped off to Rwanda? (And 2% is probably generous.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68004451
Every time you think it can't get worse, it does.
(Although if Russia is behind it, the Hamas assault on Israel was extremely stupid given Israel was one of the few major nations not to be unreservedly condemning its attacks on Ukraine.)
@JAHeale
Gordon Brown asked by Sky on whether he will do a Cameron-style comeback: “I’m too old to be a British politician and too young to be an American politician.”
The UK is at the end of a journey. The people who make the extra effort to come to the UK rather than staying in France may not compare with all the people who come into France.
This is not going to do their share price any good. They need to write out some very large cheques to back up the apologies.
Although it's getting the Referendum rather than its precise wording that's more the issue for Scotland atm.
New Thread
As for the incremental things, you saw the national scandal when Jenrick even tried to get some Mickey Mouse murals painted over. Yes they should be done, but don't pretend they're easy.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Total_economic_output_in_England_since_1270,_OWID.svg/640px-Total_economic_output_in_England_since_1270,_OWID.svg.png
2) He can appeal the damages, but not the verdict. So that will stand.
3) The documents case probably will be delayed, but that's not necessarily to his advantage for other reasons (although that's irrelevant to your point). You are wrong about the potential criminal investigation and simply quoting Fox News. It is possible she may have to resign. However, that only deals with one of the three special prosecutors and he's probably being attacked because he's black anyway. Jack Smith is having some trouble pushing forward but not as much as you or Trump would like. The case may not go ahead in March but the Supreme Court is unlikely to be able to delay it for a whole year.
It's not opposite views, it's alternative facts.