Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

The WH2024 betting as Trump all but secures the GOP nomination – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    edited January 23
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    The easiest way to stop it would be to impose a limit on universities accepting overseas graduates and then be prepared to let universities fail. It actually would not be that hard but the Government will not do it because (1) it is scared of the squealing from the well-paid university vice-chancellors and (2) I think many, particularly in the Treasury but also in Government, see it as a less politically toxic way to get cheap labour in and so offset the effects of Brexit.
    Also, letting universities fail is fucking stupid, if the reason is solely down to wanting to reduce immigration numbers. Universities are a success story for the UK and deliver jobs, research and education - in no small part paid for by foreigners, which also helps the balance of payments.
    The mistake you are making is lumping all universities into the same bracket. Some are indeed great for jobs, research and education but they are not the ones pumping up the numbers. There are plenty of universities that contribute little to the economy or research (and the same for courses) except to pay the salaries of university employees.
    University employees are part of the economy. Even the most useless degree course, that’s still foreign money coming in to the UK to pay those employees, and to pay students’ rent, and to pay for students’ food and IT needs!

    We are seeing big increases in overseas student numbers across the sector. Two of the top 5 universities by % increase are Russell Group.
    Hardly surprising - the finances of must universities are dire, and the outlook on future income is worse.

    One Russell group uni announced last week that the required grades for a course is AAA but for overseas students BBB is acceptable because they need every penny they can get.

    Oh and if enough overseas students appear next year’s grades could be AAA* for UK students
    Link? I'd be surprised that they announced that (would expect it to be policy for internal consumption!)
    https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/11/university-of-york-to-accept-some-overseas-students-with-lower-grades

    And I know other places do it but they are careful enough to keep it quiet
    In the article it says that offering lower grades to overseas is bringing it into line with its home student policy. Be very wary of the stated entry requirements. Typically all Pharmacy departments say the entry is AAB but many will take CCC on the day the results come out.

    From the article: "A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students."
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 671
    edited January 23
    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    My wife was the Coroner's Officer on the inquest for this Grand Canyon helicopter crash (https://apnews.com/article/helicopter-crash-grand-canyon-settlement-tourism-british-8db37a20c8f522d390e6842fabfa220c), in which five British tourists died. She obtained and assembled thousands of pages of evidence for the inquest. Do not take a helicopter flight over the Canyon.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    I live to help. I have actually done the Grand Canyon helicopter ride. It is definitely worth the money for a once-in-a-lifetime experience

    But be warned it is quite hair raising. I've done multiple helicopter rides - I've done microflight rides halfway up K2 - and this is the only one that has freaked me out. It is quite scary, and you get intense and various thermals from the desert and the canyon

    I cannot remember which particular one we did. I remember we had to get a bus from LV which took about 30-60 minutes to some anonymous landing strip. It was the day Notre Dame burned down - news which came as light relief after that ride
    I took a helicopter flight over the Grand Canyon with my daughter 20 years ago.
    We drove from LV to I think Grand Canyon Village, detoured via Route 66 and over the Hoover Dam, visiting the enormous generators now closed to visitors. It took about 4 hours I think.
    Our helicopter pilot was a young New Zealander who announced that we were his first passengers since he qualified. We were supplied with earphones which blasted out the theme from Apocalypse Now and we were off - at great speed about 30 feet off the ground towards the canyon. Suddenly we appeared to stop in mid air as we went over the edge of the canyon and peered a mile down to the bottom.
    Sadly you're not allowed to fly into the canyon (i.e. lower than the rim); that would be an adventure.
    A good blog on the chopper experience. Matches mine - confirms it is quite crazy - his hardcore friend ended up puking

    https://followthatnerd.com/exploring-the-grand-canyon-by-helicopter/

    Also makes the good point that you should try and get front seats. We did, but only coz the hungover pilot fancied my wife (in her skimpy summer dress) as it distracted him from the hangover so he wanted to be able to stare down her top
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,177

    Nigelb said:

    Nikki hasn’t pulled out. I believe that Mike meant the nutty guy (Vivek? Forgotten him already!)

    The nutty guy is the presumptive nominee.
    I assume StillWaters meant the nutty guy as opposed to the batshit crazy guy.

    I did - the wannabe batshit crazy guy, not the actual batshit crazy guy

  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,741
    ‘Biden is going to beat Trump like a drum’ | Anthony Scaramucci
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiI2EqSDcwI
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,872

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    To me moments like this are emblematic of why Democrats lose:

    https://twitter.com/potus/status/1749494901698375854

    Here is the President of the United States making a statement that is putting onus on voters to do stuff that he can already do. He could, in an Executive Order, say that all federal sites in the US will be usable for legal abortions. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a Roe v Wade bill, and when it gets stalled he could stand on the bully pulpit every day and scream at the top of his lungs that the GOP are refusing to pass it. He could have done these things before SCOTUS ripped it to shreds. Obama, who campaigned on codifying Roe in to law, could have done it when he had a super majority in Congress. And they didn't.

    Whereas the GOP - as evil as their stated policy aims are - just do them. Want Roe overturned - we'll give you judges who do that. Want tax cuts for the rich? Done. Want a muslim ban - we'll do it, and when the courts tell us it's illegal we'll do it again, and we'll keep trying until we get tired or the courts give up. And we don't get tired. The GOP fight for their policy preferences.

    This is one of the reasons the much bemoaned "faith in democracy" is falling. The right wing use election wins as a mandate to act, the centre / centre-left use it as a way to push the blame for not doing things on to voters (if only you'd given us a bigger mandate!). At least when an authoritarian refuses to bend to public will the public can feel moral when they riot, in a "democratic" system so many goddamn libs and bad faith right wingers argue "that's what the ballot box is for" (despite the fact that when right wingers lose at the ballot box they scream conspiracy and start plotting coups).

    Biden cannot restore the protections of Roe v Wade. That is not true. He could try a variety of things that may help, and he is doing many of those things. He signed executive order 14076, for example. He faces a hostile Supreme Court, however, who will overturn what they can. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a bill, but they’re obviously not going to, so he’s appealing to the voters instead, because you need the voters to vote for a different Congress.

    It seems odd that you call for him to “stand on the bully pulpit” to fight for abortion rights, while criticising him for… well, doing exactly that. This is him campaigning for abortion rights.
    The bully pulpit is called such to bully politicians to pass policy, not bully voters into the lesser of two evils nonsense.

    Biden could, for example, say that all federal medical facilities in any state will be open to the public to have safe abortions. He has not done that. He has not organised the Dems to pass a bill to legislate the protections of Roe v Wade and then forced the GOP into discussing their position (which is to pass a federal ban on abortion) which is hugely unpopular. The Dems are complacent. Tweeting is not a political campaign, it is gesture politics. The day, the day, the leak came out the Dems should have had a game plan on what they should do next (the GOP had already done that with multiple states having laws on the books that came into effect if / when Roe was overturned). Instead you had Dem leadership shrugging and saying "who could have seen this coming". And they have done basically nothing since as red states restrict abortion access further and further, going so far in some states as to threaten the ability for their citizens to do inter-state travel (by passing laws that criminalise going to another state to get an abortion). Women are being prosecuted for miscarriages.

    Again - when the GOP don't have a majority in Congress, they play hard ball. Dems negotiate down within their own caucus even before going to the GOP (see the ACA where Obama negotiated with Dems to take out the public option, then negotiated with the GOP to take out other provisions, and still not a single GOP pol voted for it - yet what passed still had all their negotiated changes in it).
    Do you know how the US system works?
    The President can't overrule the Supreme Court.
    Democrats are getting abortion referenda on states ballots, that will drive turnout and help them.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/abortion-ballot-state-referendums.html
    SCOTUS argued that because Congress didn't pass any legislation protecting the rights to have an abortion, and that the SCOTUS precedent created that right by turning to the equal protection clause, that it wasn't a right. That doesn't stop Congress later passing legislation to codify it as a right. Would this SCOTUS overturn it? Probably. But then fight SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not the be all and end all on constitutional interpretation - it only became that way because during the Warren court the liberals were winning and did popular things, and so it helped for the liberal establishment to accept that SCOTUS did have the final say, and then the GOP turned around and said "fine, we'll create the Federalist society, let the campaign for undemocratic entrenched conservative rule begin".
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    The easiest way to stop it would be to impose a limit on universities accepting overseas graduates and then be prepared to let universities fail. It actually would not be that hard but the Government will not do it because (1) it is scared of the squealing from the well-paid university vice-chancellors and (2) I think many, particularly in the Treasury but also in Government, see it as a less politically toxic way to get cheap labour in and so offset the effects of Brexit.
    Overseas students are a boon to the country. They bring in lots of money (to pay for their courses, obviously, but also to rent somewhere to live, to buy flash cars (often), and if they stay they go into well paid employment paying tax. The idea that having overseas students somehow stops home students attending is nonsense.
    Are places at universities not limited?
    Yes and no. At Bath there is a cap on students in the city due to limited accommodation. Within course there will be limits depending how you deliver the degree - lab space for science course etcs. So yes courses are limited. However 50% of British kids now go to Uni - if you want to go you can. You may not get the Uni you want or the course, but there are plenty of options. Its always been that way. I applied to Cambridge, fluffed the interview and didn't get in, was forced to endure Warwick instead...
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    My wife was the Coroner's Officer on the inquest for this Grand Canyon helicopter crash (https://apnews.com/article/helicopter-crash-grand-canyon-settlement-tourism-british-8db37a20c8f522d390e6842fabfa220c), in which five British tourists died. She obtained and assembled thousands of pages of evidence for the inquest. Do not take a helicopter flight over the Canyon.
    They must do dozens of flights a day, 365 days a year, and they’ve been doing it for decades. How many have crashed?

    I simply don’t believe it is that dangerous. America is such a litigious country, any cowboy outfit would get sued to oblivion, even with disclaimer forms

    if you want dangerous aerial experiences, do that Microlight in Nepal, or a hot air balloon in Egypt (my sister nearly died in one): basically any third world country
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    British Film and High-End TV - Culture, Media and Sport Committee

    How resilient is the UK's film and TV industry?

    The Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into British Film and High-End TV aims to answer just that, examining the challenges facing the industry and investigate what needs to be done to enhance the UK as a global destination for production.

    In this session, the Committee will hear from Gurinder Chadha, the acclaimed writer, director and producer of films including Bend It Like Beckham, Bride and Prejudice and Blinded by the Lights. MPs may examine what has changed for filmmakers in the UK over the past two decades and whether films have the same cultural impact as they had in the past.

    Members could also explore the importance of theatrical releases in the age of streaming and whether diversity has improved within the industry over past decades. They may also discuss the filmmaker’s attitudes towards AI, including concerns about films being used to train AI models.

    In the second panel, MPs will hear evidence from the CEOs of leading production, distribution and exhibition trade bodies. Members may ask about key issues facing their respective sectors, the ecosystem of British film and the impact of the SAG-AFTRA strikes on the UK industry.

    Questions could also be asked about the best ways to support domestic films, including tax reliefs, levies and quotas, and how the industry plans to tackle skills shortages and recruitment issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEzBl4zF5jo

    More livestreaming fun!

    The last time a government tried to support the film industry with tax reliefs it led to a lot of mis-sold investments to rich investors trying to avoid large tax bills. The Ingenious fund, for instance, which turned out to be anything but.

    It might be an idea not to repeat this scandal. We have plenty of others to be getting on with.
    Speaking of which, Teesside Freeport feels like it needs an ITV drama special.
    Yes. But not for 10 years or so. There is too little information known at the moment and too much partisan reporting, for example on the value of contaminated ex-industrial land.
    Is there a partisan piece on that? Here's what we know:
    Houchen sells the land for £1 an acre
    Houchen claims he has done no such thing
    Private Eye reports it was sold for £1 an acre, which Andy Macdonald repeats in the Commons
    Houchen spends £7k with Carter Ruck trying to sue Andy Macdonald (but not PE)
    Accounts are published proving Houchen sold the land for £1 and showing enormous profits being made by the new owners

    What I don't get is why he lied about selling it for £1 an acre. Doesn't he know company documents are public? And why spend public money trying to sue an MP for something that is covered by privilege and was factually true?
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,741
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    To me moments like this are emblematic of why Democrats lose:

    https://twitter.com/potus/status/1749494901698375854

    Here is the President of the United States making a statement that is putting onus on voters to do stuff that he can already do. He could, in an Executive Order, say that all federal sites in the US will be usable for legal abortions. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a Roe v Wade bill, and when it gets stalled he could stand on the bully pulpit every day and scream at the top of his lungs that the GOP are refusing to pass it. He could have done these things before SCOTUS ripped it to shreds. Obama, who campaigned on codifying Roe in to law, could have done it when he had a super majority in Congress. And they didn't.

    Whereas the GOP - as evil as their stated policy aims are - just do them. Want Roe overturned - we'll give you judges who do that. Want tax cuts for the rich? Done. Want a muslim ban - we'll do it, and when the courts tell us it's illegal we'll do it again, and we'll keep trying until we get tired or the courts give up. And we don't get tired. The GOP fight for their policy preferences.

    This is one of the reasons the much bemoaned "faith in democracy" is falling. The right wing use election wins as a mandate to act, the centre / centre-left use it as a way to push the blame for not doing things on to voters (if only you'd given us a bigger mandate!). At least when an authoritarian refuses to bend to public will the public can feel moral when they riot, in a "democratic" system so many goddamn libs and bad faith right wingers argue "that's what the ballot box is for" (despite the fact that when right wingers lose at the ballot box they scream conspiracy and start plotting coups).

    Biden cannot restore the protections of Roe v Wade. That is not true. He could try a variety of things that may help, and he is doing many of those things. He signed executive order 14076, for example. He faces a hostile Supreme Court, however, who will overturn what they can. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a bill, but they’re obviously not going to, so he’s appealing to the voters instead, because you need the voters to vote for a different Congress.

    It seems odd that you call for him to “stand on the bully pulpit” to fight for abortion rights, while criticising him for… well, doing exactly that. This is him campaigning for abortion rights.
    The bully pulpit is called such to bully politicians to pass policy, not bully voters into the lesser of two evils nonsense.

    Biden could, for example, say that all federal medical facilities in any state will be open to the public to have safe abortions. He has not done that. He has not organised the Dems to pass a bill to legislate the protections of Roe v Wade and then forced the GOP into discussing their position (which is to pass a federal ban on abortion) which is hugely unpopular. The Dems are complacent. Tweeting is not a political campaign, it is gesture politics. The day, the day, the leak came out the Dems should have had a game plan on what they should do next (the GOP had already done that with multiple states having laws on the books that came into effect if / when Roe was overturned). Instead you had Dem leadership shrugging and saying "who could have seen this coming". And they have done basically nothing since as red states restrict abortion access further and further, going so far in some states as to threaten the ability for their citizens to do inter-state travel (by passing laws that criminalise going to another state to get an abortion). Women are being prosecuted for miscarriages.

    Again - when the GOP don't have a majority in Congress, they play hard ball. Dems negotiate down within their own caucus even before going to the GOP (see the ACA where Obama negotiated with Dems to take out the public option, then negotiated with the GOP to take out other provisions, and still not a single GOP pol voted for it - yet what passed still had all their negotiated changes in it).
    Do you know how the US system works?
    The President can't overrule the Supreme Court.
    Democrats are getting abortion referenda on states ballots, that will drive turnout and help them.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/abortion-ballot-state-referendums.html
    SCOTUS argued that because Congress didn't pass any legislation protecting the rights to have an abortion, and that the SCOTUS precedent created that right by turning to the equal protection clause, that it wasn't a right. That doesn't stop Congress later passing legislation to codify it as a right. Would this SCOTUS overturn it? Probably. But then fight SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not the be all and end all on constitutional interpretation - it only became that way because during the Warren court the liberals were winning and did popular things, and so it helped for the liberal establishment to accept that SCOTUS did have the final say, and then the GOP turned around and said "fine, we'll create the Federalist society, let the campaign for undemocratic entrenched conservative rule begin".
    OK, but the Democrats need to have sufficient majorities in congress, which they don't have.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646

    Cyclefree said:

    British Film and High-End TV - Culture, Media and Sport Committee

    How resilient is the UK's film and TV industry?

    The Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into British Film and High-End TV aims to answer just that, examining the challenges facing the industry and investigate what needs to be done to enhance the UK as a global destination for production.

    In this session, the Committee will hear from Gurinder Chadha, the acclaimed writer, director and producer of films including Bend It Like Beckham, Bride and Prejudice and Blinded by the Lights. MPs may examine what has changed for filmmakers in the UK over the past two decades and whether films have the same cultural impact as they had in the past.

    Members could also explore the importance of theatrical releases in the age of streaming and whether diversity has improved within the industry over past decades. They may also discuss the filmmaker’s attitudes towards AI, including concerns about films being used to train AI models.

    In the second panel, MPs will hear evidence from the CEOs of leading production, distribution and exhibition trade bodies. Members may ask about key issues facing their respective sectors, the ecosystem of British film and the impact of the SAG-AFTRA strikes on the UK industry.

    Questions could also be asked about the best ways to support domestic films, including tax reliefs, levies and quotas, and how the industry plans to tackle skills shortages and recruitment issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEzBl4zF5jo

    More livestreaming fun!

    The last time a government tried to support the film industry with tax reliefs it led to a lot of mis-sold investments to rich investors trying to avoid large tax bills. The Ingenious fund, for instance, which turned out to be anything but.

    It might be an idea not to repeat this scandal. We have plenty of others to be getting on with.
    Speaking of which, Teesside Freeport feels like it needs an ITV drama special.
    Yes. But not for 10 years or so. There is too little information known at the moment and too much partisan reporting, for example on the value of contaminated ex-industrial land.
    Is there a partisan piece on that? Here's what we know:
    Houchen sells the land for £1 an acre
    Houchen claims he has done no such thing
    Private Eye reports it was sold for £1 an acre, which Andy Macdonald repeats in the Commons
    Houchen spends £7k with Carter Ruck trying to sue Andy Macdonald (but not PE)
    Accounts are published proving Houchen sold the land for £1 and showing enormous profits being made by the new owners

    What I don't get is why he lied about selling it for £1 an acre. Doesn't he know company documents are public? And why spend public money trying to sue an MP for something that is covered by privilege and was factually true?
    Presumably because he is an idiot! And also see previous idiotic Tory MP's suing over things that are true - Archer springs to mind!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    And if you want an absolute mind fuck of a helicopter ride, I can thoroughly recommend the pre-dawn flight over Uluru

    The sun doesn’t so much “rise” it kind of DETONATES




  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    Leon said:

    And if you want an absolute mind fuck of a helicopter ride, I can thoroughly recommend the pre-dawn flight over Uluru

    The sun doesn’t so much “rise” it kind of DETONATES




    Are you still allowed to do this? Have they not stopped people walking on it?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Leon said:

    And if you want an absolute mind fuck of a helicopter ride, I can thoroughly recommend the pre-dawn flight over Uluru

    The sun doesn’t so much “rise” it kind of DETONATES




    Are you still allowed to do this? Have they not stopped people walking on it?
    You can’t climb it but you can certainly fly over it. Flying over it at dawn is way less dangerous and much more spectacular than climbing it (so I am told, I’ve never climbed it)
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,491
    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    To me moments like this are emblematic of why Democrats lose:

    https://twitter.com/potus/status/1749494901698375854

    Here is the President of the United States making a statement that is putting onus on voters to do stuff that he can already do. He could, in an Executive Order, say that all federal sites in the US will be usable for legal abortions. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a Roe v Wade bill, and when it gets stalled he could stand on the bully pulpit every day and scream at the top of his lungs that the GOP are refusing to pass it. He could have done these things before SCOTUS ripped it to shreds. Obama, who campaigned on codifying Roe in to law, could have done it when he had a super majority in Congress. And they didn't.

    Whereas the GOP - as evil as their stated policy aims are - just do them. Want Roe overturned - we'll give you judges who do that. Want tax cuts for the rich? Done. Want a muslim ban - we'll do it, and when the courts tell us it's illegal we'll do it again, and we'll keep trying until we get tired or the courts give up. And we don't get tired. The GOP fight for their policy preferences.

    This is one of the reasons the much bemoaned "faith in democracy" is falling. The right wing use election wins as a mandate to act, the centre / centre-left use it as a way to push the blame for not doing things on to voters (if only you'd given us a bigger mandate!). At least when an authoritarian refuses to bend to public will the public can feel moral when they riot, in a "democratic" system so many goddamn libs and bad faith right wingers argue "that's what the ballot box is for" (despite the fact that when right wingers lose at the ballot box they scream conspiracy and start plotting coups).

    This is all bollocks. The GOP don't "just do" their stated aims. Trump wanted a wall, he didn't get a wall. He wanted to repeal ObamaCare, he couldn't repeal ObamaCare. They've been wanting to privatize medicare forever, they never got it done. They got enough judges to overturn Roe v Wade, but it took them *50 years* of evangelicals voting for whoever the GOP put up instead of bitching about it.

    I don't know what the thing about federal sites is supposed to be but your idea that Biden could have got a different result using the "bully pulpit" is total fantasy. The House passed a bill codifying Roe vs Wade, the Senate didn't. He needed 60 votes, he only had 50. Alternatively he needed to get rid of the filibuster which would need 50 votes, and there was no way Joe Manchin (representing a Trump +35% state) was going to vote for that. It doesn't matter how much he screams: You cannot attract GOP senators by screaming. They need 50 senators who will vote to get rid of the filibuster to pass the abortion law, and that genuinely is in the hands of the voters.

    It was harder for Obama than you make out: He had 60 votes very, very briefly, it relied on a senator who was really sick, and several of them were anti-abortion so they wouldn't have voted for codifying Roe v Wade. He had more senators, but more of them were conservatives who were against abolishing the filibuster. He used that tiny window to pass ObamaCare, which made a huge difference to millions of people who couldn't get medical insurance. If he'd spent the time on abortion instead he'd have passed no ObamaCare, and also nothing on abortion.
    It's also doubtful that abortion is something that Congress can legislate on, rather than it being the province of the states. At best, it can regulate (and assure) travel to states where abortion is legal cannot be punished by those states where it isn't.

    Roe v Wade was always vulnerable as the SCOTUS took ambitious legal jumps to find arguments to decide as they so did - because in effect, the Court wasn't handing down a legal judgement but was acting as a pseudo-legislature. Going back to basics - the constitution - was always likely to overturn that. It didn't need zealous right-wing evangelists to do so; just people deciding on the basis of the texts.
    This is BS. The GOP are openly stating that they want a federal ban on abortion, and SCOTUS is just another avenue for them to reaffirm their political desires. If the GOP did ban abortion federally, SCOTUS would defend it. They do not care about textualism or what the constitution says or means (if they did, their recent jurisprudence would be consistent, and it hasn't been) - they mean about meeting right wing ends.
    It's not bullshit. It's an argument based from first principles. That is quite different from either side abusing Courts' powers simply because they can.

    Republicans seeking to ban something they don't like, even though they don't have the proper power to, and can only do it because of dodgy judges, is no better than Democrats imagining rights into being that don't exist via Courts, because they can't create them politically.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,164
    edited January 23

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    To me moments like this are emblematic of why Democrats lose:

    https://twitter.com/potus/status/1749494901698375854

    Here is the President of the United States making a statement that is putting onus on voters to do stuff that he can already do. He could, in an Executive Order, say that all federal sites in the US will be usable for legal abortions. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a Roe v Wade bill, and when it gets stalled he could stand on the bully pulpit every day and scream at the top of his lungs that the GOP are refusing to pass it. He could have done these things before SCOTUS ripped it to shreds. Obama, who campaigned on codifying Roe in to law, could have done it when he had a super majority in Congress. And they didn't.

    Whereas the GOP - as evil as their stated policy aims are - just do them. Want Roe overturned - we'll give you judges who do that. Want tax cuts for the rich? Done. Want a muslim ban - we'll do it, and when the courts tell us it's illegal we'll do it again, and we'll keep trying until we get tired or the courts give up. And we don't get tired. The GOP fight for their policy preferences.

    This is one of the reasons the much bemoaned "faith in democracy" is falling. The right wing use election wins as a mandate to act, the centre / centre-left use it as a way to push the blame for not doing things on to voters (if only you'd given us a bigger mandate!). At least when an authoritarian refuses to bend to public will the public can feel moral when they riot, in a "democratic" system so many goddamn libs and bad faith right wingers argue "that's what the ballot box is for" (despite the fact that when right wingers lose at the ballot box they scream conspiracy and start plotting coups).

    Biden cannot restore the protections of Roe v Wade. That is not true. He could try a variety of things that may help, and he is doing many of those things. He signed executive order 14076, for example. He faces a hostile Supreme Court, however, who will overturn what they can. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a bill, but they’re obviously not going to, so he’s appealing to the voters instead, because you need the voters to vote for a different Congress.

    It seems odd that you call for him to “stand on the bully pulpit” to fight for abortion rights, while criticising him for… well, doing exactly that. This is him campaigning for abortion rights.
    The bully pulpit is called such to bully politicians to pass policy, not bully voters into the lesser of two evils nonsense.

    Biden could, for example, say that all federal medical facilities in any state will be open to the public to have safe abortions. He has not done that. He has not organised the Dems to pass a bill to legislate the protections of Roe v Wade and then forced the GOP into discussing their position (which is to pass a federal ban on abortion) which is hugely unpopular. The Dems are complacent. Tweeting is not a political campaign, it is gesture politics. The day, the day, the leak came out the Dems should have had a game plan on what they should do next (the GOP had already done that with multiple states having laws on the books that came into effect if / when Roe was overturned). Instead you had Dem leadership shrugging and saying "who could have seen this coming". And they have done basically nothing since as red states restrict abortion access further and further, going so far in some states as to threaten the ability for their citizens to do inter-state travel (by passing laws that criminalise going to another state to get an abortion). Women are being prosecuted for miscarriages.

    Again - when the GOP don't have a majority in Congress, they play hard ball. Dems negotiate down within their own caucus even before going to the GOP (see the ACA where Obama negotiated with Dems to take out the public option, then negotiated with the GOP to take out other provisions, and still not a single GOP pol voted for it - yet what passed still had all their negotiated changes in it).
    Do you know how the US system works?
    The President can't overrule the Supreme Court.
    Democrats are getting abortion referenda on states ballots, that will drive turnout and help them.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/abortion-ballot-state-referendums.html
    SCOTUS argued that because Congress didn't pass any legislation protecting the rights to have an abortion, and that the SCOTUS precedent created that right by turning to the equal protection clause, that it wasn't a right. That doesn't stop Congress later passing legislation to codify it as a right. Would this SCOTUS overturn it? Probably. But then fight SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not the be all and end all on constitutional interpretation - it only became that way because during the Warren court the liberals were winning and did popular things, and so it helped for the liberal establishment to accept that SCOTUS did have the final say, and then the GOP turned around and said "fine, we'll create the Federalist society, let the campaign for undemocratic entrenched conservative rule begin".
    OK, but the Democrats need to have sufficient majorities in congress, which they don't have.
    Don't you know that they can solve this by using the Bully Pulpit, where Biden makes an *angry speech* and says that GOP senators are preventing him from protecting abortion, and GOP primary voters in their respective states say, "Hang on, I thought my Republican senator was pro-abortion, I didn't realize he was preventing people from having them. Also despite being a Republican I am a huge fan of Joe Biden and crave his approval". Then 10 GOP Senators say, "please stop bullying me, Mr Biden" and vote for it.

    The only reason the Democrats aren't using this brilliant strategy that would totally work is because they're *complacent* and don't *fight*.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102

    Small but astonishing moment in this mornng's evidence at the PO Inquiry.

    The witness is another 'Investigator' and it emerged that when he submitted his cv for the job, he put forward his wife's qualifications as his own!

    The PO certainly found some pond life to carry out its dirty work.

    That's a disgraceful comment

    As the founder of the Royal Society For The Preservation Of The Reputation Of Urban Aquatic Wildlife, I strongly object to your suggestion that that waterboatmen and small frogs are anything like Post Office investigators.

    Have you ever had an aquatic snail perjure itself? Had a tadpole conduct racially targeted investigations on the hapless?

    Quite.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Small but astonishing moment in this mornng's evidence at the PO Inquiry.

    The witness is another 'Investigator' and it emerged that when he submitted his cv for the job, he put forward his wife's qualifications as his own!

    The PO certainly found some pond life to carry out its dirty work.

    So the PO didn’t even vet the CVs of people they hired as investigators?

    That explains a lot.
    How could they investigate them properly?
    Well, they hired investigators. Top men, top men....
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I think people are supporting Trump as a protest vote against the general incompetence of American government over recent years. It's not because they like him as a person.

    I can think of one person who was in charge for four of those years of incompetence.
    Thanks, Obama.
    Four?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,074
    viewcode said:

    RobD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I think people are supporting Trump as a protest vote against the general incompetence of American government over recent years. It's not because they like him as a person.

    I can think of one person who was in charge for four of those years of incompetence.
    Thanks, Obama.
    Four?
    The first four were alright ;)
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,741

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    To me moments like this are emblematic of why Democrats lose:

    https://twitter.com/potus/status/1749494901698375854

    Here is the President of the United States making a statement that is putting onus on voters to do stuff that he can already do. He could, in an Executive Order, say that all federal sites in the US will be usable for legal abortions. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a Roe v Wade bill, and when it gets stalled he could stand on the bully pulpit every day and scream at the top of his lungs that the GOP are refusing to pass it. He could have done these things before SCOTUS ripped it to shreds. Obama, who campaigned on codifying Roe in to law, could have done it when he had a super majority in Congress. And they didn't.

    Whereas the GOP - as evil as their stated policy aims are - just do them. Want Roe overturned - we'll give you judges who do that. Want tax cuts for the rich? Done. Want a muslim ban - we'll do it, and when the courts tell us it's illegal we'll do it again, and we'll keep trying until we get tired or the courts give up. And we don't get tired. The GOP fight for their policy preferences.

    This is one of the reasons the much bemoaned "faith in democracy" is falling. The right wing use election wins as a mandate to act, the centre / centre-left use it as a way to push the blame for not doing things on to voters (if only you'd given us a bigger mandate!). At least when an authoritarian refuses to bend to public will the public can feel moral when they riot, in a "democratic" system so many goddamn libs and bad faith right wingers argue "that's what the ballot box is for" (despite the fact that when right wingers lose at the ballot box they scream conspiracy and start plotting coups).

    Biden cannot restore the protections of Roe v Wade. That is not true. He could try a variety of things that may help, and he is doing many of those things. He signed executive order 14076, for example. He faces a hostile Supreme Court, however, who will overturn what they can. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a bill, but they’re obviously not going to, so he’s appealing to the voters instead, because you need the voters to vote for a different Congress.

    It seems odd that you call for him to “stand on the bully pulpit” to fight for abortion rights, while criticising him for… well, doing exactly that. This is him campaigning for abortion rights.
    The bully pulpit is called such to bully politicians to pass policy, not bully voters into the lesser of two evils nonsense.

    Biden could, for example, say that all federal medical facilities in any state will be open to the public to have safe abortions. He has not done that. He has not organised the Dems to pass a bill to legislate the protections of Roe v Wade and then forced the GOP into discussing their position (which is to pass a federal ban on abortion) which is hugely unpopular. The Dems are complacent. Tweeting is not a political campaign, it is gesture politics. The day, the day, the leak came out the Dems should have had a game plan on what they should do next (the GOP had already done that with multiple states having laws on the books that came into effect if / when Roe was overturned). Instead you had Dem leadership shrugging and saying "who could have seen this coming". And they have done basically nothing since as red states restrict abortion access further and further, going so far in some states as to threaten the ability for their citizens to do inter-state travel (by passing laws that criminalise going to another state to get an abortion). Women are being prosecuted for miscarriages.

    Again - when the GOP don't have a majority in Congress, they play hard ball. Dems negotiate down within their own caucus even before going to the GOP (see the ACA where Obama negotiated with Dems to take out the public option, then negotiated with the GOP to take out other provisions, and still not a single GOP pol voted for it - yet what passed still had all their negotiated changes in it).
    Do you know how the US system works?
    The President can't overrule the Supreme Court.
    Democrats are getting abortion referenda on states ballots, that will drive turnout and help them.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/08/us/politics/abortion-ballot-state-referendums.html
    SCOTUS argued that because Congress didn't pass any legislation protecting the rights to have an abortion, and that the SCOTUS precedent created that right by turning to the equal protection clause, that it wasn't a right. That doesn't stop Congress later passing legislation to codify it as a right. Would this SCOTUS overturn it? Probably. But then fight SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not the be all and end all on constitutional interpretation - it only became that way because during the Warren court the liberals were winning and did popular things, and so it helped for the liberal establishment to accept that SCOTUS did have the final say, and then the GOP turned around and said "fine, we'll create the Federalist society, let the campaign for undemocratic entrenched conservative rule begin".
    OK, but the Democrats need to have sufficient majorities in congress, which they don't have.
    Don't you know that they can solve this by using the Bully Pulpit, where Biden makes an *angry speech* and says that GOP senators are preventing him from protecting abortion, and GOP primary voters in their respective states say, "Hang on, I thought my Republican senator was pro-abortion, I didn't realize he was preventing people from having them. Also despite being a Republican I am a huge fan of Joe Biden and crave his approval". Then 10 GOP Senators say, "please stop bullying me, Mr Biden" and vote for it.

    The only reason the Democrats aren't using this brilliant strategy that would totally work is because they're *complacent* and don't *fight*.
    Who are you and what have you done with Edmund?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,222
    deleted
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,355

    Small but astonishing moment in this mornng's evidence at the PO Inquiry.

    The witness is another 'Investigator' and it emerged that when he submitted his cv for the job, he put forward his wife's qualifications as his own!

    The PO certainly found some pond life to carry out its dirty work.

    That's a disgraceful comment

    As the founder of the Royal Society For The Preservation Of The Reputation Of Urban Aquatic Wildlife, I strongly object to your suggestion that that waterboatmen and small frogs are anything like Post Office investigators.

    Have you ever had an aquatic snail perjure itself? Had a tadpole conduct racially targeted investigations on the hapless?

    Quite.
    On the other hand, there are apparently noxious parasites such as the tapeworms that visibly infect sticklebacks. OTOH, on a strict ecological study they are beneficial in promoting the flow of food in the trophic cycle (easier to catch by herons etc.), and their elimination would have unforeseen and probably harmful effects. PO investigators, on thbe other hand ...
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
  • Options
    SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 611
    Conservative MP Huw Merriman has just given a Sky TV interview in which as an example of BBC bias against the Tories he singled out Neil Buchanan. Michael Buchanan is a journalist. Neil Buchanan used to present a kids' art show on TV.

    They really are a bunch of amateurs in government.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,505
    Those red sores on his hands? Burns, not syphyllitic chancres.


  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    I live to help. I have actually done the Grand Canyon helicopter ride. It is definitely worth the money for a once-in-a-lifetime experience

    But be warned it is quite hair raising. I've done multiple helicopter rides - I've done microflight rides halfway up K2 - and this is the only one that has freaked me out. It is quite scary, and you get intense and various thermals from the desert and the canyon

    I cannot remember which particular one we did. I remember we had to get a bus from LV which took about 30-60 minutes to some anonymous landing strip. It was the day Notre Dame burned down - news which came as light relief after that ride
    Cheers @leon. Appreciated. Having barrel rolled twice and done a fast roll twice in a Pitts Special I suspect I can handle it (although next was going to be the loop de loop and I was feeling too sick to do that, although I have had a go in an acrobatics glider). And for anyone who hasn't done it a Pitts Special is something worth doing once (and once only).
    Just to make clear (as it appears half of you on here are pilots) I was a passenger. I have flown gliders, but never solo and not an aerobatics glider and the stick on the Pitts Special was so twitchy I only held it for about a nano second.
    Never fly an F16, then.
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240119-the-f-16-at-50-why-its-still-in-demand
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,455
    SandraMc said:

    Conservative MP Huw Merriman has just given a Sky TV interview in which as an example of BBC bias against the Tories he singled out Neil Buchanan. Michael Buchanan is a journalist. Neil Buchanan used to present a kids' art show on TV.

    They really are a bunch of amateurs in government.

    Scouser. And he used to wear a red jumper on Art Attack. QED.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,248

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    The easiest way to stop it would be to impose a limit on universities accepting overseas graduates and then be prepared to let universities fail. It actually would not be that hard but the Government will not do it because (1) it is scared of the squealing from the well-paid university vice-chancellors and (2) I think many, particularly in the Treasury but also in Government, see it as a less politically toxic way to get cheap labour in and so offset the effects of Brexit.
    Also, letting universities fail is fucking stupid, if the reason is solely down to wanting to reduce immigration numbers. Universities are a success story for the UK and deliver jobs, research and education - in no small part paid for by foreigners, which also helps the balance of payments.
    The mistake you are making is lumping all universities into the same bracket. Some are indeed great for jobs, research and education but they are not the ones pumping up the numbers. There are plenty of universities that contribute little to the economy or research (and the same for courses) except to pay the salaries of university employees.
    University employees are part of the economy. Even the most useless degree course, that’s still foreign money coming in to the UK to pay those employees, and to pay students’ rent, and to pay for students’ food and IT needs!

    We are seeing big increases in overseas student numbers across the sector. Two of the top 5 universities by % increase are Russell Group.
    Hardly surprising - the finances of must universities are dire, and the outlook on future income is worse.

    One Russell group uni announced last week that the required grades for a course is AAA but for overseas students BBB is acceptable because they need every penny they can get.

    Oh and if enough overseas students appear next year’s grades could be AAA* for UK students
    Link? I'd be surprised that they announced that (would expect it to be policy for internal consumption!)
    https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/11/university-of-york-to-accept-some-overseas-students-with-lower-grades

    And I know other places do it but they are careful enough to keep it quiet
    In the article it says that offering lower grades to overseas is bringing it into line with its home student policy. Be very wary of the stated entry requirements. Typically all Pharmacy departments say the entry is AAB but many will take CCC on the day the results come out.

    From the article: "A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students."
    I would say that I’ve seen what I explained at a couple of universities where I’ve done work on student recruitment (sideline part of a bigger university student lifecycle project that the software package I specialise in sells and has implemented at multiple universities. So the statement is also attached to anecdotal evidence that overseas students do get lower offers.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,744
    biggles said:

    SandraMc said:

    Conservative MP Huw Merriman has just given a Sky TV interview in which as an example of BBC bias against the Tories he singled out Neil Buchanan. Michael Buchanan is a journalist. Neil Buchanan used to present a kids' art show on TV.

    They really are a bunch of amateurs in government.

    Scouser. And he used to wear a red jumper on Art Attack. QED.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Dsb_r8qDss&t=1s
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 20,331
    biggles said:

    SandraMc said:

    Conservative MP Huw Merriman has just given a Sky TV interview in which as an example of BBC bias against the Tories he singled out Neil Buchanan. Michael Buchanan is a journalist. Neil Buchanan used to present a kids' art show on TV.

    They really are a bunch of amateurs in government.

    Scouser. And he used to wear a red jumper on Art Attack. QED.
    I know him. Had an affair with Amanda Holden.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,716
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,643

    Small but astonishing moment in this mornng's evidence at the PO Inquiry.

    The witness is another 'Investigator' and it emerged that when he submitted his cv for the job, he put forward his wife's qualifications as his own!

    The PO certainly found some pond life to carry out its dirty work.

    That's a disgraceful comment

    As the founder of the Royal Society For The Preservation Of The Reputation Of Urban Aquatic Wildlife, I strongly object to your suggestion that that waterboatmen and small frogs are anything like Post Office investigators.

    Have you ever had an aquatic snail perjure itself? Had a tadpole conduct racially targeted investigations on the hapless?

    Quite.
    I'd be concerned about their HR procedures too, in checking people are what they claim to be.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,643
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    And if you want an absolute mind fuck of a helicopter ride, I can thoroughly recommend the pre-dawn flight over Uluru

    The sun doesn’t so much “rise” it kind of DETONATES




    Are you still allowed to do this? Have they not stopped people walking on it?
    You can’t climb it but you can certainly fly over it. Flying over it at dawn is way less dangerous and much more spectacular than climbing it (so I am told, I’ve never climbed it)
    Sun arise, bring in the morning.
    Sun arise, bring in the morning, spreading all the light all around.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,455

    biggles said:

    SandraMc said:

    Conservative MP Huw Merriman has just given a Sky TV interview in which as an example of BBC bias against the Tories he singled out Neil Buchanan. Michael Buchanan is a journalist. Neil Buchanan used to present a kids' art show on TV.

    They really are a bunch of amateurs in government.

    Scouser. And he used to wear a red jumper on Art Attack. QED.
    I know him. Had an affair with Amanda Holden.
    Partly jealous. Partly wondering at this stage who hasn’t?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    The easiest way to stop it would be to impose a limit on universities accepting overseas graduates and then be prepared to let universities fail. It actually would not be that hard but the Government will not do it because (1) it is scared of the squealing from the well-paid university vice-chancellors and (2) I think many, particularly in the Treasury but also in Government, see it as a less politically toxic way to get cheap labour in and so offset the effects of Brexit.
    Also, letting universities fail is fucking stupid, if the reason is solely down to wanting to reduce immigration numbers. Universities are a success story for the UK and deliver jobs, research and education - in no small part paid for by foreigners, which also helps the balance of payments.
    The mistake you are making is lumping all universities into the same bracket. Some are indeed great for jobs, research and education but they are not the ones pumping up the numbers. There are plenty of universities that contribute little to the economy or research (and the same for courses) except to pay the salaries of university employees.
    University employees are part of the economy. Even the most useless degree course, that’s still foreign money coming in to the UK to pay those employees, and to pay students’ rent, and to pay for students’ food and IT needs!

    We are seeing big increases in overseas student numbers across the sector. Two of the top 5 universities by % increase are Russell Group.
    Hardly surprising - the finances of must universities are dire, and the outlook on future income is worse.

    One Russell group uni announced last week that the required grades for a course is AAA but for overseas students BBB is acceptable because they need every penny they can get.

    Oh and if enough overseas students appear next year’s grades could be AAA* for UK students
    Link? I'd be surprised that they announced that (would expect it to be policy for internal consumption!)
    https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/11/university-of-york-to-accept-some-overseas-students-with-lower-grades

    And I know other places do it but they are careful enough to keep it quiet
    In the article it says that offering lower grades to overseas is bringing it into line with its home student policy. Be very wary of the stated entry requirements. Typically all Pharmacy departments say the entry is AAB but many will take CCC on the day the results come out.

    From the article: "A spokesperson for York said the move would bring international student admissions into line with the approach it used for UK students."
    I would say that I’ve seen what I explained at a couple of universities where I’ve done work on student recruitment (sideline part of a bigger university student lifecycle project that the software package I specialise in sells and has implemented at multiple universities. So the statement is also attached to anecdotal evidence that overseas students do get lower offers.
    I can't comment on other unis really, but that is not the case for my course and Uni. There is always scope for the offering body (the Uni) to make lower offers. We do it most commonly for home students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Bath is horribly middle class, and very conscious of this). The main overseas cohort at Bath seems to be the one year masters courses - an easy way to upgrade a bachelors (that may not have been as high a grade as hoped) into a masters qualification.

    Most courses at most universities are not oversubscribed - where they are people will miss out.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,776
    edited January 23
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    My wife was the Coroner's Officer on the inquest for this Grand Canyon helicopter crash (https://apnews.com/article/helicopter-crash-grand-canyon-settlement-tourism-british-8db37a20c8f522d390e6842fabfa220c), in which five British tourists died. She obtained and assembled thousands of pages of evidence for the inquest. Do not take a helicopter flight over the Canyon.
    They must do dozens of flights a day, 365 days a year, and they’ve been doing it for decades. How many have crashed?

    I simply don’t believe it is that dangerous. America is such a litigious country, any cowboy outfit would get sued to oblivion, even with disclaimer forms

    if you want dangerous aerial experiences, do that Microlight in Nepal, or a hot air balloon in Egypt (my sister nearly died in one): basically any third world country
    Thank you @leon and everyone else for your feedback. Appreciated. Having read the various links I am getting a little concerned now as I do get motion sickness (from wallowing not violent movement). I did get motion sickness during my Pitts Special flight, but then we are not going to be doing those sort of monoevers. All of a dither now.

    And yes a trip in a helicopter carries a risk, but a calculated risk not worse than many others and life is worth living (until you die, possibly prematurely that is).
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,491

    Cyclefree said:

    British Film and High-End TV - Culture, Media and Sport Committee

    How resilient is the UK's film and TV industry?

    The Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into British Film and High-End TV aims to answer just that, examining the challenges facing the industry and investigate what needs to be done to enhance the UK as a global destination for production.

    In this session, the Committee will hear from Gurinder Chadha, the acclaimed writer, director and producer of films including Bend It Like Beckham, Bride and Prejudice and Blinded by the Lights. MPs may examine what has changed for filmmakers in the UK over the past two decades and whether films have the same cultural impact as they had in the past.

    Members could also explore the importance of theatrical releases in the age of streaming and whether diversity has improved within the industry over past decades. They may also discuss the filmmaker’s attitudes towards AI, including concerns about films being used to train AI models.

    In the second panel, MPs will hear evidence from the CEOs of leading production, distribution and exhibition trade bodies. Members may ask about key issues facing their respective sectors, the ecosystem of British film and the impact of the SAG-AFTRA strikes on the UK industry.

    Questions could also be asked about the best ways to support domestic films, including tax reliefs, levies and quotas, and how the industry plans to tackle skills shortages and recruitment issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEzBl4zF5jo

    More livestreaming fun!

    The last time a government tried to support the film industry with tax reliefs it led to a lot of mis-sold investments to rich investors trying to avoid large tax bills. The Ingenious fund, for instance, which turned out to be anything but.

    It might be an idea not to repeat this scandal. We have plenty of others to be getting on with.
    Speaking of which, Teesside Freeport feels like it needs an ITV drama special.
    Yes. But not for 10 years or so. There is too little information known at the moment and too much partisan reporting, for example on the value of contaminated ex-industrial land.
    Is there a partisan piece on that? Here's what we know:
    Houchen sells the land for £1 an acre
    Houchen claims he has done no such thing
    Private Eye reports it was sold for £1 an acre, which Andy Macdonald repeats in the Commons
    Houchen spends £7k with Carter Ruck trying to sue Andy Macdonald (but not PE)
    Accounts are published proving Houchen sold the land for £1 and showing enormous profits being made by the new owners

    What I don't get is why he lied about selling it for £1 an acre. Doesn't he know company documents are public? And why spend public money trying to sue an MP for something that is covered by privilege and was factually true?
    Houchen being a tit is not news but nor is it the stuff of a TV drama. The question revolves around the value of the land. I've seen reasonable estimates that it's of substantially negative value because of contamination. I'd wait to see whether these claimed paper profits materialise in reality before putting a seal on the alleged scandal.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518

    148grss said:

    148grss said:

    To me moments like this are emblematic of why Democrats lose:

    https://twitter.com/potus/status/1749494901698375854

    Here is the President of the United States making a statement that is putting onus on voters to do stuff that he can already do. He could, in an Executive Order, say that all federal sites in the US will be usable for legal abortions. He could go to Congress and demand they pass a Roe v Wade bill, and when it gets stalled he could stand on the bully pulpit every day and scream at the top of his lungs that the GOP are refusing to pass it. He could have done these things before SCOTUS ripped it to shreds. Obama, who campaigned on codifying Roe in to law, could have done it when he had a super majority in Congress. And they didn't.

    Whereas the GOP - as evil as their stated policy aims are - just do them. Want Roe overturned - we'll give you judges who do that. Want tax cuts for the rich? Done. Want a muslim ban - we'll do it, and when the courts tell us it's illegal we'll do it again, and we'll keep trying until we get tired or the courts give up. And we don't get tired. The GOP fight for their policy preferences.

    This is one of the reasons the much bemoaned "faith in democracy" is falling. The right wing use election wins as a mandate to act, the centre / centre-left use it as a way to push the blame for not doing things on to voters (if only you'd given us a bigger mandate!). At least when an authoritarian refuses to bend to public will the public can feel moral when they riot, in a "democratic" system so many goddamn libs and bad faith right wingers argue "that's what the ballot box is for" (despite the fact that when right wingers lose at the ballot box they scream conspiracy and start plotting coups).

    This is all bollocks. The GOP don't "just do" their stated aims. Trump wanted a wall, he didn't get a wall. He wanted to repeal ObamaCare, he couldn't repeal ObamaCare. They've been wanting to privatize medicare forever, they never got it done. They got enough judges to overturn Roe v Wade, but it took them *50 years* of evangelicals voting for whoever the GOP put up instead of bitching about it.

    I don't know what the thing about federal sites is supposed to be but your idea that Biden could have got a different result using the "bully pulpit" is total fantasy. The House passed a bill codifying Roe vs Wade, the Senate didn't. He needed 60 votes, he only had 50. Alternatively he needed to get rid of the filibuster which would need 50 votes, and there was no way Joe Manchin (representing a Trump +35% state) was going to vote for that. It doesn't matter how much he screams: You cannot attract GOP senators by screaming. They need 50 senators who will vote to get rid of the filibuster to pass the abortion law, and that genuinely is in the hands of the voters.

    It was harder for Obama than you make out: He had 60 votes very, very briefly, it relied on a senator who was really sick, and several of them were anti-abortion so they wouldn't have voted for codifying Roe v Wade. He had more senators, but more of them were conservatives who were against abolishing the filibuster. He used that tiny window to pass ObamaCare, which made a huge difference to millions of people who couldn't get medical insurance. If he'd spent the time on abortion instead he'd have passed no ObamaCare, and also nothing on abortion.
    It's also doubtful that abortion is something that Congress can legislate on, rather than it being the province of the states. At best, it can regulate (and assure) travel to states where abortion is legal cannot be punished by those states where it isn't.

    Roe v Wade was always vulnerable as the SCOTUS took ambitious legal jumps to find arguments to decide as they so did - because in effect, the Court wasn't handing down a legal judgement but was acting as a pseudo-legislature. Going back to basics - the constitution - was always likely to overturn that. It didn't need zealous right-wing evangelists to do so; just people deciding on the basis of the texts.
    This is BS. The GOP are openly stating that they want a federal ban on abortion, and SCOTUS is just another avenue for them to reaffirm their political desires. If the GOP did ban abortion federally, SCOTUS would defend it. They do not care about textualism or what the constitution says or means (if they did, their recent jurisprudence would be consistent, and it hasn't been) - they mean about meeting right wing ends.
    It's not bullshit. It's an argument based from first principles. That is quite different from either side abusing Courts' powers simply because they can.

    Republicans seeking to ban something they don't like, even though they don't have the proper power to, and can only do it because of dodgy judges, is no better than Democrats imagining rights into being that don't exist via Courts, because they can't create them politically.
    Well that's a crock of the proverbial, for a start.

    The majority in Roe consisted of three Nixon appointments; two Eisenhower; one LBJ and one FDR.

    Roe was settled law for half a century.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz does seem to have been used more and more recently. Nobody in any trade body has proposed this, it’s just sort of happened. You see it on menus too. It’s easy enough to vary into Welsh fizz too.

    We are however facing a bit of a crisis point in the next 2 years with huge amounts of supply coming on stream and wholesale grape prices tumbling. Every new wine region goes through the glut phase, usually followed by consolidation and a focus on quality. Good thing is we never had the fall in quality that usually comes with a glut. It’s all improving every year.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,776
    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    I live to help. I have actually done the Grand Canyon helicopter ride. It is definitely worth the money for a once-in-a-lifetime experience

    But be warned it is quite hair raising. I've done multiple helicopter rides - I've done microflight rides halfway up K2 - and this is the only one that has freaked me out. It is quite scary, and you get intense and various thermals from the desert and the canyon

    I cannot remember which particular one we did. I remember we had to get a bus from LV which took about 30-60 minutes to some anonymous landing strip. It was the day Notre Dame burned down - news which came as light relief after that ride
    Cheers @leon. Appreciated. Having barrel rolled twice and done a fast roll twice in a Pitts Special I suspect I can handle it (although next was going to be the loop de loop and I was feeling too sick to do that, although I have had a go in an acrobatics glider). And for anyone who hasn't done it a Pitts Special is something worth doing once (and once only).
    Just to make clear (as it appears half of you on here are pilots) I was a passenger. I have flown gliders, but never solo and not an aerobatics glider and the stick on the Pitts Special was so twitchy I only held it for about a nano second.
    Never fly an F16, then.
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240119-the-f-16-at-50-why-its-still-in-demand
    Well I don't know. Would be interested to hear from someone who does. @Dura_Ace are you there? Obviously an F16 is faster and accelerates quicker, particularly at higher speed but I assume it can't be thrown around like a Pitts Special, which was designed for just that purpose.

    Just to clarify I have no expertise in this area other than my gut feelings.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    My wife was the Coroner's Officer on the inquest for this Grand Canyon helicopter crash (https://apnews.com/article/helicopter-crash-grand-canyon-settlement-tourism-british-8db37a20c8f522d390e6842fabfa220c), in which five British tourists died. She obtained and assembled thousands of pages of evidence for the inquest. Do not take a helicopter flight over the Canyon.
    They must do dozens of flights a day, 365 days a year, and they’ve been doing it for decades. How many have crashed?

    I simply don’t believe it is that dangerous. America is such a litigious country, any cowboy outfit would get sued to oblivion, even with disclaimer forms

    if you want dangerous aerial experiences, do that Microlight in Nepal, or a hot air balloon in Egypt (my sister nearly died in one): basically any third world country
    Thank you @leon and everyone else for your feedback. Appreciated. Having read the various links I am getting a little concerned now as I do get motion sickness (from wallowing not violent movement). I did get motion sickness during my Pitts Special flight, but then we are not going to be doing those sort of monoevers. All of a dither now.

    And yes a trip in a helicopter carries a risk, but a calculated risk not worse than many others and life is worth living (until you die, possibly prematurely that is).
    I did the trip when I was about 12, in the back of a Cessna.
    It was wildly uncomfortable, extremely hot, and quite bouncy. One of the other passengers spent the flight vomiting.

    I've had more fun experiences.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,222
    On Universities, my half-Thai granddaughters (at least the eldest one) has decided against an English (or Welsh) university purely on the grounds of cost.
    She’s aiming for an Australian one; her school expects her to have no problems.

    I don’t think she ever considered a Scottish or Irish one; don’t really know why.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,230
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    My wife was the Coroner's Officer on the inquest for this Grand Canyon helicopter crash (https://apnews.com/article/helicopter-crash-grand-canyon-settlement-tourism-british-8db37a20c8f522d390e6842fabfa220c), in which five British tourists died. She obtained and assembled thousands of pages of evidence for the inquest. Do not take a helicopter flight over the Canyon.
    They must do dozens of flights a day, 365 days a year, and they’ve been doing it for decades. How many have crashed?

    I simply don’t believe it is that dangerous. America is such a litigious country, any cowboy outfit would get sued to oblivion, even with disclaimer forms

    if you want dangerous aerial experiences, do that Microlight in Nepal, or a hot air balloon in Egypt (my sister nearly died in one): basically any third world country
    Take tourist flights in small planes in first world countries. Only.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 23
    Just read that Matt Forde is recovering from Cancer. Didn’t even know he had it. Hope he makes a full recovery. I went to a few of his Political Party shows around 2015 which were very good fun. That was an exciting time to be into politics
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    British Film and High-End TV - Culture, Media and Sport Committee

    How resilient is the UK's film and TV industry?

    The Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into British Film and High-End TV aims to answer just that, examining the challenges facing the industry and investigate what needs to be done to enhance the UK as a global destination for production.

    In this session, the Committee will hear from Gurinder Chadha, the acclaimed writer, director and producer of films including Bend It Like Beckham, Bride and Prejudice and Blinded by the Lights. MPs may examine what has changed for filmmakers in the UK over the past two decades and whether films have the same cultural impact as they had in the past.

    Members could also explore the importance of theatrical releases in the age of streaming and whether diversity has improved within the industry over past decades. They may also discuss the filmmaker’s attitudes towards AI, including concerns about films being used to train AI models.

    In the second panel, MPs will hear evidence from the CEOs of leading production, distribution and exhibition trade bodies. Members may ask about key issues facing their respective sectors, the ecosystem of British film and the impact of the SAG-AFTRA strikes on the UK industry.

    Questions could also be asked about the best ways to support domestic films, including tax reliefs, levies and quotas, and how the industry plans to tackle skills shortages and recruitment issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEzBl4zF5jo

    More livestreaming fun!

    The last time a government tried to support the film industry with tax reliefs it led to a lot of mis-sold investments to rich investors trying to avoid large tax bills. The Ingenious fund, for instance, which turned out to be anything but.

    It might be an idea not to repeat this scandal. We have plenty of others to be getting on with.
    Speaking of which, Teesside Freeport feels like it needs an ITV drama special.
    Yes. But not for 10 years or so. There is too little information known at the moment and too much partisan reporting, for example on the value of contaminated ex-industrial land.
    Is there a partisan piece on that? Here's what we know:
    Houchen sells the land for £1 an acre
    Houchen claims he has done no such thing
    Private Eye reports it was sold for £1 an acre, which Andy Macdonald repeats in the Commons
    Houchen spends £7k with Carter Ruck trying to sue Andy Macdonald (but not PE)
    Accounts are published proving Houchen sold the land for £1 and showing enormous profits being made by the new owners

    What I don't get is why he lied about selling it for £1 an acre. Doesn't he know company documents are public? And why spend public money trying to sue an MP for something that is covered by privilege and was factually true?
    Houchen being a tit is not news but nor is it the stuff of a TV drama. The question revolves around the value of the land. I've seen reasonable estimates that it's of substantially negative value because of contamination. I'd wait to see whether these claimed paper profits materialise in reality before putting a seal on the alleged scandal.
    They aren't paper profits - realised. The land had significant amounts of scrap metal on it - sold by the developers for millions. And the taxpayer - not the developer - is paying the decontamination bill.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,934
    isam said:

    Just read that Matt Forde is recovering from Cancer. Didn’t even know he had it. Hope he makes a full recovery. I went to a few of his Political Party shows around 2015 which were very good fun. That was an exciting time to be into politics

    It was the free owls that hooked you?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,788
    edited January 23
    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz does seem to have been used more and more recently. Nobody in any trade body has proposed this, it’s just sort of happened. You see it on menus too. It’s easy enough to vary into Welsh fizz too.

    We are however facing a bit of a crisis point in the next 2 years with huge amounts of supply coming on stream and wholesale grape prices tumbling. Every new wine region goes through the glut phase, usually followed by consolidation and a focus on quality. Good thing is we never had the fall in quality that usually comes with a glut. It’s all improving every year.
    Aussie Shiraz survived, as did Argie Malbec

    Both can be superb products, sold alongside the cheaper variety. She’ll be apples

    OK German Liebfraumilch never recovered, but then, what were they thinking: Blue Nun? Black Tower? And Mateus Rose never got over its being Saddam Hussein’s favourite wine

    As long as Putin isn’t guzzling the Chapel Down all is well

    And yes, English Fizz is a really good name. I don’t understand why producers resist it: it is easy to say, memorable, and has that indefinable pizazz

    “Oh I say, shall we have some more ENGLISH FIZZ??” AHA! YES!

    You immediately picture everyone in some film adaptation of PG Wodehouse. This is a GOOD thing for a celebratory wine with aspirational branding

    Also, some of the alternatives OMG.

    “Albion” is one

    Albion. That’s British sherry re-fermented by Nigel Farage’s retarded half brother, who lives in a shed in Worksop

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,230
    kjh said:

    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    I live to help. I have actually done the Grand Canyon helicopter ride. It is definitely worth the money for a once-in-a-lifetime experience

    But be warned it is quite hair raising. I've done multiple helicopter rides - I've done microflight rides halfway up K2 - and this is the only one that has freaked me out. It is quite scary, and you get intense and various thermals from the desert and the canyon

    I cannot remember which particular one we did. I remember we had to get a bus from LV which took about 30-60 minutes to some anonymous landing strip. It was the day Notre Dame burned down - news which came as light relief after that ride
    Cheers @leon. Appreciated. Having barrel rolled twice and done a fast roll twice in a Pitts Special I suspect I can handle it (although next was going to be the loop de loop and I was feeling too sick to do that, although I have had a go in an acrobatics glider). And for anyone who hasn't done it a Pitts Special is something worth doing once (and once only).
    Just to make clear (as it appears half of you on here are pilots) I was a passenger. I have flown gliders, but never solo and not an aerobatics glider and the stick on the Pitts Special was so twitchy I only held it for about a nano second.
    Never fly an F16, then.
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240119-the-f-16-at-50-why-its-still-in-demand
    Well I don't know. Would be interested to hear from someone who does. @Dura_Ace are you there? Obviously an F16 is faster and accelerates quicker, particularly at higher speed but I assume it can't be thrown around like a Pitts Special, which was designed for just that purpose.

    Just to clarify I have no expertise in this area other than my gut feelings.
    They can all be pretty terrifying in different ways.

    My favourite flight was the MDM-1 Fox glider, which is very aerobatic indeed. https://www.williamssoaring.com/fleet/mdm1-fox.html

    The Red Bull Air Race guys used to fly planes like the Extra 330, with the 330 representing degrees of roll per second!
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_EA-300

    Those two are about as visceral an experience as it’s possible to have in an aircraft - although I wouldn’t turn down a seat in a fast jet if one was offered!
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,037

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Build. More. Houses.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,643

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Building more homes would help, obviously not short term, but this is only going to get worse. If we keep hoovering in people in their hundreds of thousands and build nowhere near enough homes where people want to live then this is what will happen.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    “I wan’ a bot’l of Albyun”
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    isam said:

    Just read that Matt Forde is recovering from Cancer. Didn’t even know he had it. Hope he makes a full recovery. I went to a few of his Political Party shows around 2015 which were very good fun. That was an exciting time to be into politics

    EICIPM, Rotterdam effect, Nick Clegg, BOO, jumpers for goalposts...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102
    a
    Taz said:

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Building more homes would help, obviously not short term, but this is only going to get worse. If we keep hoovering in people in their hundreds of thousands and build nowhere near enough homes where people want to live then this is what will happen.
    At the start of the Coalition government, Clegg vetoed more nuclear power stations on the grounds that they would only be ready is the distant, far-off years of 2023/24.

    By the time people have finished bitching out the short term, the log term has often arrived. Start building now.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz does seem to have been used more and more recently. Nobody in any trade body has proposed this, it’s just sort of happened. You see it on menus too. It’s easy enough to vary into Welsh fizz too.

    We are however facing a bit of a crisis point in the next 2 years with huge amounts of supply coming on stream and wholesale grape prices tumbling. Every new wine region goes through the glut phase, usually followed by consolidation and a focus on quality. Good thing is we never had the fall in quality that usually comes with a glut. It’s all improving every year.
    Aussie Shiraz survived, as did Argie Malbec

    Both can be superb products, sold alongside the cheaper variety. She’ll be apples

    OK German Liebfraumilch never recovered, but then, what were they thinking: Blue Nun? Black Tower? And Mateus Rose never got over its being Saddam Hussein’s favourite wine

    As long as Putin isn’t guzzling the Chapel Down all is well

    And yes, English Fizz is a really good name. I don’t understand why producers resist it: it is easy to say, memorable, and has that indefinable pizazz

    “Oh I say, shall we have some more ENGLISH FIZZ??” AHA! YES!

    You immediately picture everyone in some film adaptation of PG Wodehouse. This is a GOOD thing for a celebratory wine with aspirational branding

    Also, some of the alternatives OMG.

    “Albion” is one

    Albion. That’s British sherry re-fermented by Nigel Farage’s retarded half brother, who lives in a shed in Worksop

    Interesting story about Mateus Rose, from Oz Clarke’s history of wine.

    The country estate pictured on the label isn’t the wine estate, it’s a nearby house. The owners were offered either a one off payment equivalent to about £50k in modern prices, or around 1p per bottle sold. Sadly they chose the fixed payment.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,074

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Has this been fact checked? It doesn’t sound believable. Their budget says they receive ~£14m from taxpayers directly, yet I don’t see a corresponding outlay of £7m.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Travel question please (especially @leon):

    Planning a trip to Las Vegas and Death Valley. Suggestions please?

    Will do trip to Grand Canyon while in LV as well. I want to go by helicopter, but my wife won't get in one. I also I understand they only go to the West Rim, which doesn't seem the best option. So what do we do? I definitely want the helicopter trip somewhere in it, which I could do at the South Rim, but the trip to there seems a long way by road.

    I'm planning this around a Santana concert.

    Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions please?

    My wife was the Coroner's Officer on the inquest for this Grand Canyon helicopter crash (https://apnews.com/article/helicopter-crash-grand-canyon-settlement-tourism-british-8db37a20c8f522d390e6842fabfa220c), in which five British tourists died. She obtained and assembled thousands of pages of evidence for the inquest. Do not take a helicopter flight over the Canyon.
    They must do dozens of flights a day, 365 days a year, and they’ve been doing it for decades. How many have crashed?

    I simply don’t believe it is that dangerous. America is such a litigious country, any cowboy outfit would get sued to oblivion, even with disclaimer forms

    if you want dangerous aerial experiences, do that Microlight in Nepal, or a hot air balloon in Egypt (my sister nearly died in one): basically any third world country
    Take tourist flights in small planes in first world countries. Only.
    I took a spectacular little internal flight in Georgia from Kutaisi to Mestia, over the mountains and into the middle of the Caucasus. Scheduled, but about 10 seats. I had similar discussions with my wife about it beforehand. Safety record was unblemished but I think she was glad when we landed.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,256

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/homelessness_solution
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,788
    Leon said:

    “I wan’ a bot’l of Albyun”

    I agree Albion is a vile name.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    There's an awful lot of councils going bust...

    Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



    Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.

    I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,177
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog

    But you already have Bucks Fizz…
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,230
    viewcode said:

    There's an awful lot of councils going bust...

    Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.

    Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.

    LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,269
    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    There's an awful lot of councils going bust...

    Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.

    Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.

    LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
    The irony is, it was a commitment to housebuilding requirements that led to Woking's bankruptcy.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,248
    RobD said:

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Has this been fact checked? It doesn’t sound believable. Their budget says they receive ~£14m from taxpayers directly, yet I don’t see a corresponding outlay of £7m.
    It’s very believable - a lot of emergency accommodation is both crap and eye wateringly expensive because the council has no choice but to pay given that they often have no where left to use
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,788
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



    Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.

    To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz does seem to have been used more and more recently. Nobody in any trade body has proposed this, it’s just sort of happened. You see it on menus too. It’s easy enough to vary into Welsh fizz too.

    We are however facing a bit of a crisis point in the next 2 years with huge amounts of supply coming on stream and wholesale grape prices tumbling. Every new wine region goes through the glut phase, usually followed by consolidation and a focus on quality. Good thing is we never had the fall in quality that usually comes with a glut. It’s all improving every year.
    Aussie Shiraz survived, as did Argie Malbec

    Both can be superb products, sold alongside the cheaper variety. She’ll be apples

    OK German Liebfraumilch never recovered, but then, what were they thinking: Blue Nun? Black Tower? And Mateus Rose never got over its being Saddam Hussein’s favourite wine

    As long as Putin isn’t guzzling the Chapel Down all is well

    And yes, English Fizz is a really good name. I don’t understand why producers resist it: it is easy to say, memorable, and has that indefinable pizazz

    “Oh I say, shall we have some more ENGLISH FIZZ??” AHA! YES!

    You immediately picture everyone in some film adaptation of PG Wodehouse. This is a GOOD thing for a celebratory wine with aspirational branding

    Also, some of the alternatives OMG.

    “Albion” is one

    Albion. That’s British sherry re-fermented by Nigel Farage’s retarded half brother, who lives in a shed in Worksop

    Interesting story about Mateus Rose, from Oz Clarke’s history of wine.

    The country estate pictured on the label isn’t the wine estate, it’s a nearby house. The owners were offered either a one off payment equivalent to about £50k in modern prices, or around 1p per bottle sold. Sadly they chose the fixed payment.
    Great story

    A very similar story exists in British publishing. H Rider Haggard had just finished and pitched his first novel - King’s Solomons Mines - and the putative publisher was very keen. But Haggard was a novice. Had no idea what to ask for in return. So the scheming editor said “we can give you a lavish lump sum of five hundred guineas here and now!” Then, with a lower voice, and a curl of the lip “Or we can offer you… royalties” - the wince very much meant to imply: this could be thruppence

    Rider Haggard had no idea what this was all about so he asked for a night to think it over. As he left the office a clerk, who had overheard the conversation, quietly lifted an eyebrow as the author passed the desk and he said

    “Er, Mister Rider Haggard, I rather think you should choose the royalties”

    And then went back to work

    So the author did choose the royalties. And he made several billion guineas, at a rough guess
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    i think we are over-frightening @kjh into NOT doing the Canyon Flight

    It’s not THAT bad. And it is something he will never forget

    ;)
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,455
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



    Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.

    I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.
    “Informal” is the key point isn’t it? Every menu I see says “English Sparkling Wine” and everyone now knows to expect good, dry stuff and to be surprised if it isn’t*. But they might call it “English fizz” just like they call champagne “fizz”.

    *You know something is good when it makes it website the line on menus in places like Andrew Edmonds.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,074
    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Has this been fact checked? It doesn’t sound believable. Their budget says they receive ~£14m from taxpayers directly, yet I don’t see a corresponding outlay of £7m.
    It’s very believable - a lot of emergency accommodation is both crap and eye wateringly expensive because the council has no choice but to pay given that they often have no where left to use
    I looked at their 2022-23 budget but couldn’t see anything. Possibly it’s squirrelled away under a non-descript line item.
  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,455
    edited January 23

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog

    But you already have Bucks Fizz…
    Still making my mind up about this post.

    Edit - beaten to it. Never mind.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,037
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

    Neither the left nor liberals have been in charge for quite a long time.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,646
    Leon said:

    i think we are over-frightening @kjh into NOT doing the Canyon Flight

    It’s not THAT bad. And it is something he will never forget

    ;)

    He won't have a chance to if it crashes and he dies in the accident...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,171
    FPT - if Hunt is after a big election giveaway it should be focused on: (a) unfreezing IT allowances and the stealth rises this represents (b) reforming stamp duty/taxes on landlords to encourage more property for rent, (c) putting anything "extra" into the NHS for healthcare and local authorities for adult/social care and (d) uprating Defence.

    He then wraps it all into a LTEP, politically, about our economic, social and physical security and sharing the proceeds of growth.

    However, I expect instead he'll go for a sugar-rush headline % cut which misses the point and is politically ineffective anyway.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822
    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Has this been fact checked? It doesn’t sound believable. Their budget says they receive ~£14m from taxpayers directly, yet I don’t see a corresponding outlay of £7m.
    It’s very believable - a lot of emergency accommodation is both crap and eye wateringly expensive because the council has no choice but to pay given that they often have no where left to use
    As I see it this is a combination of unfunded statutory obligations on Council's regarding housing and landlords fleeing the housing market due to regulation and tax. Hit some areas disproportionately where there are high house prices, supply issues and rents. The government like to perpetrate the fiction that it is all about 'poor management' in Council's and not a problem of their own making.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



    Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.

    I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



    Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.

    To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
    But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality

    This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly

    Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon

  • Options
    bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,455
    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    There's an awful lot of councils going bust...

    Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.

    Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.

    LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
    That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,037
    RobD said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Has this been fact checked? It doesn’t sound believable. Their budget says they receive ~£14m from taxpayers directly, yet I don’t see a corresponding outlay of £7m.
    It’s very believable - a lot of emergency accommodation is both crap and eye wateringly expensive because the council has no choice but to pay given that they often have no where left to use
    I looked at their 2022-23 budget but couldn’t see anything. Possibly it’s squirrelled away under a non-descript line item.
    https://www.lewes-eastbourne.gov.uk/article/2515/Councils-in-crisis-Leaders-to-meet-in-Westminster

    £4.9m - 30% of council total spending power. Don't know if spending power includes monies that aren't taxpayer funded such as parking fees, rental income etc which could take it to 49% of taxpayers funds, or if £4.9m has somehow been conflated into 49%.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



    Pefriog is the Welsh one. It has a chance I think. But most will call it Welsh fizz.

    I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with both you and Luckyguy. But that’s because we’re not discussing immigration or wind turbines. It’ll never be an official designation like Crémant or Cava for naffness reasons but it will increasingly be the informal term used.

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    One for @TimS

    Sales of English Fizz are soaring


    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/chapel-down-sales-champagne-profits-sparkling-wine

    Particularly gratifying is the Guardian’s use of the phrase “English Fizz”

    They’ve been searching for a name for this product and the name is right there. English Fizz. It sounds fun and with a hint of poshness - like Eton Mess - or indeed Prosecco

    That’s what it must be called. Uncork the English Fizz

    English fizz is a colloquiallism that can never be used as an official designation because that would be as vulgar as Christening one's children 'Archie' or 'Lillibet'.
    I predict it will become the go-to phrase, because no one can agree on anything else, and it sounds pukka

    Here are some other suggested alternatives

    Merret

    Britagne (cringe value: 10/10)

    Pefriog

    I’m not joking: Pefriog



    Yes, it can be the 'go to' phrase, but precisely because it's a nickname. The power of a nickname is that it's a casual term for something that has a different official name.

    To be called "*******", there also has to be a set of official standards, so that the name carries significance, otherwise every dickhead with a vineyard and a soda stream will be churning it out, which damages the overall brand. I don't see how you can do this with 'English fizz', because anything that's English and fizzy (and wine I guess) qualifies.
    But this is easily sorted. Once English Fizz has a cachet and a brand AND is generally accepted, THEN you invent and apply rules as to what constitutes English Fizz, to maintain the quality

    This is literally what happened to drinks like champagne. First they had the drink, then a general name for it, then the French government insisted on rules - and it works brilliantly

    Champagne didn’t start with the Elysee Palace insisting that the French start making sparkling wines in a certain way in a certain part of France, then off they went, with Dom Perignon

    Champagne was the regional name for still wine from the Champagne region for centuries. Thin acidic stuff, until developments in glass technology (in the British cider industry) allowed for controlled sparkling production.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,248
    edited January 23
    darkage said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Has this been fact checked? It doesn’t sound believable. Their budget says they receive ~£14m from taxpayers directly, yet I don’t see a corresponding outlay of £7m.
    It’s very believable - a lot of emergency accommodation is both crap and eye wateringly expensive because the council has no choice but to pay given that they often have no where left to use
    As I see it this is a combination of unfunded statutory obligations on Council's regarding housing and landlords fleeing the housing market due to regulation and tax. Hit some areas disproportionately where there are high house prices, supply issues and rents. The government like to perpetrate the fiction that it is all about 'poor management' in Council's and not a problem of their own making.
    A house rented out or a house owned by an owner occupier is still a house hosting a family.

    The issue is that demand for housing now vastly exceeds supply which isn’t surprising when the population has risen by 1.2m yet we only built 100,000 new homes (at best)

    As you say it’s a national government issue that is appearing locally where various factors have made things unavoidable
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 48,088
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

    Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous

    It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler

    And they just don’t get it
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,776
    Leon said:

    i think we are over-frightening @kjh into NOT doing the Canyon Flight

    It’s not THAT bad. And it is something he will never forget

    ;)

    Thanks for the nice post @Leon.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,171
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

    Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous

    It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler

    And they just don’t get it
    A sensible Left would propose more foreign aid, investment, conflict resolution, and bilateral agreements, including help at source, to "stop the boats".

    Instead, they say "safe and legal routes" which I don't think they realise is heard as: create an open door for anyone who wants it.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,822

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

    Neither the left nor liberals have been in charge for quite a long time.
    Those in power have the same liberal mindset, benevolent towards immigrants and minorities, dismissive of majority populations and their concerns. Hence you have the situation in Ireland, where the 'right wing' government 'update' hate speech laws in response to riots about immigration, so as to try and remove the views that led to them. It won't work. In the UK, despite its rhetoric, the Conservative government have never seriously questioned the basis of equalities legislation, and regarding immigration, numbers have dramatically increased.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,140
    eek said:

    darkage said:

    eek said:

    RobD said:

    Daniel Hewitt
    @DanielHewittITV

    Council leaders holding emergency meeting in Westminster to warn govt the cost of housing homeless people is pushing then to brink of bankruptcy.

    Eastbourne’s Council leader says they are spending 49p in every £1 of taxpayers money on temporary accommodation.

    Has this been fact checked? It doesn’t sound believable. Their budget says they receive ~£14m from taxpayers directly, yet I don’t see a corresponding outlay of £7m.
    It’s very believable - a lot of emergency accommodation is both crap and eye wateringly expensive because the council has no choice but to pay given that they often have no where left to use
    As I see it this is a combination of unfunded statutory obligations on Council's regarding housing and landlords fleeing the housing market due to regulation and tax. Hit some areas disproportionately where there are high house prices, supply issues and rents. The government like to perpetrate the fiction that it is all about 'poor management' in Council's and not a problem of their own making.
    A house rented out or a house owned by an owner occupier is still a house hosting a family.

    The issue is that demand for housing now vastly exceeds supply which isn’t surprising when the population has risen by 1.2m yet we only built 100,000 new homes (at best)

    As you say it’s a national government issue that is appearing locally where various factors have made things unavoidable
    This is one of the problems with political discussion on housing. The basic issue is supply vs demand. It doesn’t make a difference at the macro level whether new building is owner occupied or rented, public or private, “affordable” or luxury. The total supply vs total demand sets the price.

    It’s also why it’s not just a supply question (though at the moment that’s the main issue). It’s also about demand. It’s one of the arguments about immigration that make most sense to me. But it’s not just about total population, it’s also household size and prevalence of multigenerational households.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,037
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

    Neither the left nor liberals have been in charge for quite a long time.
    Those in power have the same liberal mindset, benevolent towards immigrants and minorities, dismissive of majority populations and their concerns. Hence you have the situation in Ireland, where the 'right wing' government 'update' hate speech laws in response to riots about immigration, so as to try and remove the views that led to them. It won't work. In the UK, despite its rhetoric, the Conservative government have never seriously questioned the basis of equalities legislation, and regarding immigration, numbers have dramatically increased.
    If the people in power were benevolent towards immigrants, they would err......build......more.......houses.

    They don't. They accept the immigration for financial reasons, not benevolence.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,230
    biggles said:

    Sandpit said:

    viewcode said:

    There's an awful lot of councils going bust...

    Is anybody in the Labour or Conservative Parties talking about this and preferably putting forward a solution? Serious question. It's not going to influence my vote, but it would be nice to know that somebody somewhere can find their couch in their living room.

    Most of the local government problems seem to stem from either speculative investments not working out, or being unable to raise sufficient revenues to make their costs, mostly because of central government regulations on council tax increases.

    LAs need to be able to raise much more of their own money, which means the councils both rely less on central government for their incomes, and are incentivised to allow more housebuilding in their area.
    That is dangerous though. Once LAs have significant and independent borrowing powers, not moderated by the public works loan board, that’s a serious potential risk to public finances. It’s all of a lot less use to, say, Crewe than it is to Westminster.
    I’d only let them borrow from banks on commercial terms, not to issue bonds or other government borrowing types.

    If they want to build a building then fine, the bank will have a building if the LA doesn’t keep up the payments. But no borrowing for general spending, raise council tax if you want to do that.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,872
    Leon said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

    Indeed. This is why the Left is not just delusional, it is dangerous

    It is basically waving a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler

    And they just don’t get it
    Lol, reactionary arguing that "progress" is the problem, not being a reactionary. Might as well say "look, it's not okay to allow the gays out of the closet, because it's a THIS WAY sign to the next Hitler. Can't give equal rights to women; because what if Hitler?".

    The main issue is that liberals (separate group from leftists or the left) refuse to meet these progressive values with progressive material improvements for all people. I remember reading a great study that showed men in the workplace saw improvements for women in the workplace as a zero sum situation - if women gained they must be losing. The same for white men thinking about people of colour. But that feeling was, in part, because the "benefits" of being a man or being white in the workforce were "making up" for where their salaries lacked - the social benefits of being a white man in the workforce were a wage supplement, in a sense, and so when those "benefits" disappeared (by tackling bigotry) they felt they were "losing out".
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,171
    "Fizz" or "Bubbly" is very non-U.

    Needs to be Cuveé, Blanc de Blancs or Brut.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,650
    edited January 23
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    i think we are over-frightening @kjh into NOT doing the Canyon Flight

    It’s not THAT bad. And it is something he will never forget

    ;)

    Thanks for the nice post @Leon.
    Generally aircraft perhaps particularly helicopters crash into things (or get hit by things aimed in their general direction).

    A flight on a clear day far above obstacles is a pretty safe option. Plus if something does happen at altitude in a helicopter there are options rather than it just adopts the aerodynamic properties of a grand piano, as they say.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,650

    "Fizz" or "Bubbly" is very non-U.

    Needs to be Cuveé, Blanc de Blancs or Brut.

    So you're saying 'poo is out of the question?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 56,171
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    This election is going to play very differently regionally. I expect the Tories to be all but wiped out in London, metropolitan areas and to have a shocker in the South West and Wales. Conversely, I think their vote will be stickier than expected in the midlands and in some northern county/small towns.

    I can't speak for the Midlands. For northern England they are going to get absolutely destroyed. Whilst there will remain pockets of shire Tories, all of the places where blue collar Boris Brexit Toryism exploded in 2019 will be lost. All. Maybe keep a random couple if they are lucky and the vote splits right to allow their collapse to still leave them on top.

    Why? Because, to get all northern again for a minute, they've done fuck all round here. Too. many morons unexpectedly elected, fed the spin lines by head office which they parrot about all the things they are delivering. Whilst delivering nothing. Voters are used to nothing, but they're not used to being lied to about it.

    Worse still is the parochial bigotry that was always close to the surface in many towns now whipped to a frenzy. They voted Brexit and then Boris to get the foreigners out. Gone. Its their fault we can't see a doctor, why the schools are crap, why there's no jobs and no money. And even in 2019 the lure of the further right was strong - the Brexit Party saved Labour in a stack of seats. I expect the number of FUKkers to be even higher this time, and vs 2019 they will mostly be transfers from Tory 2019 totals.

    It is going to be a political bloodbath. And well deserved - will be fun to see what Lord Ben I'll Sue Houchen will do with his local support all gone and the wolves closing in on the scent of malfeasance...
    Round here a comment I’ve heard often is where have all these coloured people come from.

    And it’s not usually as a racist comment we’ve always had a few people of Asian / African descent but there are noticeably more than used to be the case

    Granted a lot of the people complaining won’t actually vote but it does show how many people think Bozo and co have utterly failed to deliver what they promised
    It's a lot worse than "not delivering", they have done the opposite of delivering. We have had 1.3 million migrants in two years, which is: simply off the dial, unprecedented in our history, changing the country visibly and briskly, and is a larger rate per capita than any annual immigration into the "land of immigrants" - the USA

    We are importing more people than America in the era of Ellis Island. Take a minute and grasp that

    It is screamingly insane, it is a kind of Ponzi scheme, and all of this is happening as everyone admits the NHS can't cope, our sewage system can't cope, our infrastructure is fucked, and house-ownership is becoming a dream for anyone under 50

    The Tories are going to be obliterated, and deservedly, to the extent they may never recover

    However, Starmer will then have to tackle this issue. It cannot be ignored. What will he do?



    How much off that 1.3 million is Ukraine/Hong Kong and adjustments of student numbers after covid?
    I believe about 100-150,000 is Ukraine/HK

    Students dunno, but an awful lot of them have brought dependants (much more than usual), and a much higher propertion are now converting their student visas to work visas, so they stay


    Now it's great that people want to come here, it's good our unis are attractive, I am sure 98% of these people are fantastic brain surgeons to be, but the simple fact is the UK cannot cope with 700,000 net immigrants a year. Remember when Cameron vowed to get it down to tens of thousands? Now it is SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND

    To grasp this nettle will take courage. Does Starmer possess it? I doubt it, and it's not in Labour's nature to clamp down on migration
    It is perfectly possible to integrate 700K people in UK society a year.

    To do so will take investment in infrastructure, and in the effort to socially integrate them. Nothing is free, all the options require work to be done.
    What, in perpetuity? 700,000 a year for the next 30 years? That will add 20 million people to the population and transform entire cities and regions, in ethnicity, culture, religion, mores, laws, everything - coz those 20 million people won’t be from Ireland or Denmark

    This is absolute madness - and it really is the way you guarantee a far right party governing the country

    People like you are fucking dangerous
    It's worth pointing out, it took years and years and years and years and years just to integrate the Irish when there was mass immigration from Ireland in the 19th century. We still have separate Catholic schools. It's still the case that Irish surnames are disproportionately common among the poorest parts of white British society. Now the irish are foreign, but as foreigners go they're not very foreign.
    Integration is very very hard.
    Are you some kind of Nazi???

    Integrating 700,000 Africans, Asians, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Peruvians every single year is fine. 1.3m every two years - good. 3 million every four years even better. Doddle. What’s your problem, DOCTOR GOEBBELS?? Don’t you like foreigners?

    All you have to do is look across Europe and see that the Hard and Far Right is now a minuscule and diminishing threat, even after large scale immigration, and everyone can tell that you are basically parroting Mein Kampf

    This is my objection to the 'progressive mindset'. 'Integration' is seen as a case of education and eliminating prejudice amongst the local population. Where this fails, then it can be compelled by law. However, this applies only to existing majority populations, not incomers. I have encountered this type of thinking amongst 'liberals' for 10 years and it is much in evidence on PB. The more extreme it gets, the more radical the eventual response will be. The rise of Trump, the AfD etc can be predicted almost like an algorhythm. If you think you can outlaw Trump and the AfD, then the response you eventually encounter gets more and more gruesome until you get an actual Hitler. In this way the left are responsible for the return of fascism, because it is all a product of their own fascism in ignoring legitimate opposition to their policies and suppressing ideas, speech and beliefs through law. In this context, it may not be such a bad idea to start working with the "far right" to address these problems, as they have been doing (for instance) in Finland for a decade.

    Neither the left nor liberals have been in charge for quite a long time.
    Those in power have the same liberal mindset, benevolent towards immigrants and minorities, dismissive of majority populations and their concerns. Hence you have the situation in Ireland, where the 'right wing' government 'update' hate speech laws in response to riots about immigration, so as to try and remove the views that led to them. It won't work. In the UK, despite its rhetoric, the Conservative government have never seriously questioned the basis of equalities legislation, and regarding immigration, numbers have dramatically increased.
    One thing I think this Government has done, actually, is to check the post-2020 surge in Wokery. Oliver Dowden had a lot to do with that.

    Starmer, I suspect, will take the brakes off.
This discussion has been closed.