Another interesting question, if the Tories merge with Reform, is whether there are enough more moderate Tory MP's left for the Parliamentary party to split, or whether a new party will simply emerge, separately.
There are very large gaps opening up on the Centre-Right, and Left, of British politics.
There aren't enough Remainer, One Nation Tory MPs to make up a new party that can win seats under FPTP, at most they would go LD.
The Tories would only likely merge with Reform, Canada style, if Reform overtook them on seats and votes.
Under PR of course the Tories and Reform could stay separate parties but form coalition governments together
The logic would be that a new party would emerge to the left of Labour (maybe combining with the Greens, maybe not) - that gap in the market has long been obvious, leaving the Labour brand as a moderate, social democratic party. So the LibDems would have to shift into a centre-right, FDP type position that would accommodate those one nation Tories, leaving whatever emerges from the wreckage of the car crash on the right as the right wing party. Whether there's an additional space beyond that for the extremely nutty right wing (other than as a fringe protest party) isn't at all clear.
New parties emerging under PR is less common and more random than such predictions make out. For ex., National and Labour both remained intact after NZ switched to PR.
I'm really only positing one - the left-wing one - and shells for that exist already. I would anticipate the others continuing on, if with some repositioning.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I sold my car last year. I still occasionally miss it, but not because I regret selling it, the logic of getting rid of it was indisputable. I was using it twice a month, and paying hundreds a month to keep it
I miss it because it was a fun fast car with a splendid blue-to-black roof (a Mini JCW) and getting in it was always fun
More to the point, how is the PB Weightwatchers Club?
I just got on the scales. 86kg! I have lost almost 12kg. A large chunk of me is missing. I don't think I will hit my target weight by Feb 8 as I hoped, but it is still coming down, and I should get there in Feb some time. It feels good; I definitely feel healthier
Fucking boring tho. Dieting and lots of sober days. YAWN
Heh, I started on 86kg, but for reference I was about 70kg pre-Lockdown blues. Imagine a stick thin guy but with massive jowly puffy face and enormous sticky out beer belly if you want to know what I looked like in december. Honestly, I looked like I was pregnant.
Currently on 81kg. 4 of those were lost in the first couple of weeks, but only 1kg down since then (last 2 weeks).
I'm putting this down to a) water weight loss from stopping drinking and b) it was much easier to fast/restrict calories while I was burning off sugar accumulated from alcohol. Much harder to go a day without eating now I don't have those sugar reserves.
Big question is will the diet last past Dry January. I'm aware my relationship with alcohol became pretty unhealthy during lockdown, but also, everything in my social life revolves around drinking.
Hideous photos of oneself when horribly fat are a big motivator. I have found one of me in late November last year, Peak Porkiness. My head is the size of a planetoid and I am so grossly fat I have really noticeable MOOBS. Jeez. And the weird thing is, at the time I thought I was looking OK. The power of denial, eh
I hear you on the booze, but I have had to slow down or I will keel over. I started with cutting out the drinking of red wine first thing in the morning. I reckon, in retrospect, that wasn't entirely healthy. Then I turned on lunchtime boozing. Now I am restricting my days of boozing alone at home, in the evening (which is a shame, as I love a nice bottle of red, on my own, watching Netflix)
I still drink quite a lot by any standards - and hope to continue - but it is less than half what it was
I find fasting much easier than not drinking, dunno why. I can go days without food and its fine
Yeah, I was morning drinking during lockdown. People may judge, but I was suicidal at the time (Thanks, Lockdown!) and it was what I needed to do to survive. Looking back... I was completely over the edge. Big red schnozz, crumpled beard hiding sagging jowls... I probably looked like a man who'd decided to drink himself to death.
Luckily I had a good doctor who tapered me off it with diazepam, but in the last year or so I settled into a pattern of going to the pub at lunchtime for two pints and a sandwich to to break up the monotony of the work day, then a bottle of wine at home in the evenings. As you say, it makes Netflix more interesting. I read *a lot* more now I'm not drinking, which is an unexpected bonus. Plus regular friday and saturday night blowouts with friends. I'm now a month off that (last drink was on Boxing day).
I'd like to get back to a place where I can drink with friends but not drink at home alone, as not going out is turning me into a hermit. But I suspect drinking out with friends will turn me back into a home drinker again pretty rapidly and I'll be back to square one.
It's a bind. No social life forever, or hang out with the sort of people who eat tofu and do yoga and talk about wellness...
We sound pretty similar
Yes the aim must be to get to "normal" drinking. 2 or 3 days a week, social drinking, maybe one day with a bottle at home, the rest dry. If I can do that I will be happy, it will still be three hundred times the weekly recommended thimble of weak beer but for me it will be a real achievement. And of course it goes hand in puffy hand with weight loss
Booze doesn't necessarily translate to calories like food does, it is less bioavailable - its why alkies are often skinny - but booze does lower the inhibitions which leads to snacks, takeaways and midnight feasts
Anyway, well done you on staying dry and losing several kilos. We will get there. PB Weight-and-Winewatchers Works!
On the question of the post-PR political landscape it's not always wise to go with how politics has evolved in other countriues which use some form of PR.
A lot would depend on the system - an MMP style system would still allow for a single centre-left and a single centre-right party (Australia and New Zealand for example). A lot would also depend on the historical evolution of political movements (Ireland and Israel are examples of where the politics has developed from the indpendence struggle).
You obviously have those states with strong regional identities as well.
Go down a more purely proportional route such as STV and the tensions on the broad coalition of parties become more evident. The issue then becomes whwere the fault lines are - particular issues, personalities or both. You can have quite similar parties which are adversarial because of a long unresolved internal schism or personal dispute.
The Liberal Party split more because of the acrimony between Lloyd George and Asquith - Labour split in the early 1980s on the issues of defence and EEC membership. The Conservatives have had problems with free trade in the past so all things are possible.
STV also allows an individual to in effect form their own party or "list". You could have a "Boris Johnson List" for example of candidates personally endorsed by the leader.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
There are four metrics of transport choice: - Cost - Convenience - Speed / time - Pleasantness.
For short-to-medium distance journeys, the car will generally win on most, if not all, of them. Trips to city centres may be an exception though even then, convenience and pleasantness can often outweigh cost and/or time.
Even today, more commutes of less than 2km (1.2 miles) are walked or cycled than driven.
1. Immediately reissue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats and wield that power “very aggressively."
2. Clean out all the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.
3. Totally reform FISA courts.
4. Establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify and publish all documents on the deep state’s spying, censorship, and corruption.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with “fake news to deliberately weave false narratives and subvert our government and democracy.”
6. Make every inspector general’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee.
7. Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies.
8. Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the “Washington Swamp.”
9. Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate.
10. Push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
"My middle names are Robert and Mugabe."
How many similar practices would Trump bring in when he agglomerates as much power as possible to himself?
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
A very powerful statement from the mother of Barnaby Webber about the Nottingham murders last year.
""You have blood on your hands," Barnaby's parents says to Griffen. "If you had just done your jobs properly there's a very good chance my beautiful boy would be alive today.""
It also sounds as though the families were not kept in the loop about the fact it was going to be a manslaughter charge, not murder.
Schizo during a psychosis. Diminished responsibility, he will surely go to Broadmoor forever but yeah, if I was the parent of one of those dead kids I'd want him nailed for murder (and probably executed)
How much will it cost to keep him in Broadmoor for the rest of his life?
A LOT. Severe schizophrenics like him tend to die young, tho
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Sailings reduce over Christmas and New Year; who'd have thought it?
It's not that. @148grss believes that the Houthis are doing this because of the Israel/Palestine situation. As I have shown, these attacks were occurring many years before the Hamas attack in October. They may have increased the amount of attacks; but that might be because Iran realises that a lot of useful idiots will condone their actions "coz Israel".
There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight. They are doing this for their own reasons, and I'd strongly argue those reasons go directly against what people like @148grss state they believe in.
"There is no evidence that Iran or the Houthis care about Palestine or the Palestinians. There is no evidence these attacks would stop if Israel magically became a Palestinian state overnight."
"Houthi leaders also repeated that their threats to ships in the Red Sea were solely directed at stopping commercial ships trading with Israel due to its bombardment of Gaza. They insisted other ships had free passage. Some ships navigating the Red Sea have put out identifiers saying they are “not Israeli connected”."
1) Why do you believe them? 2) Why were they doing it before? 3) Why are they attacking ships that have no connection with Israel?
1) Because their actions are in accordance with their statement - yes they had attacked ships in the past but not to this degree. 2) I don't know - probably because they think America / the West is the great Satan - does it matter? I have repeatedly said you can do bad things for bad reasons and still then later decide to do good things for good reasons. You can even do good things for bad reasons - this may be more about hating the great Satan than Palestine, but by saying it is about Palestine they are trying to create leverage for dealing with the issue. 3) I don't know - their statements seem to be along the line of "ships who didn't identify" but probably because they aren't a particularly well disciplined navy.
I love this level of scrutiny for international relation decisions, do we do it for everyone? Can we ask the same of Israel? If this war is just about October 7th why should we believe them, because they were doing attacks before and killing civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas? Indeed before October 7th the UN had already recognised that 2023 was the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank, especially children.
A short report from Channel 5 news about Operation SNAP (road crime reports via video uploads) in the Mercia Police Force. Blind bends are a theme of the examples.
One stat I had not picked up on before - 20% of drivers now run dashcams, which is where most reports come from.
I'm not sure of the 33516 reports in 2023 (that feels low to me - the London number alone was 15k+ in 2022), with 70% action taken (warning letter / educational course / FPN/ court summons).
I have uploaded and reported people to the Police via the Website. Mainly Durham but also Northumbria when I venture that far.
Since the Go North East bus strike concluded I have been, especially, targetting their bus drivers.
Why on earth are you doing that.
The reason they went on strike was because they were being paid 50% less than other bus drivers working for Go Ahead in other parts of the country l.
I really do wonder about the sanity of some people.
Also the only end result of your action is a bus driver possibly losing their license and with no one sane rushing to do the job a reduced bus service for those who need it.
Round here Arriva can’t find bus drivers at all because for what they are paying it ain’t worth the hassle - the warehouses pay more and offer better t&cs.
You are quite wrong. They were not on strike as they were paid 50% less.
They wanted pay parity with the North West, North West drivers were on more, around 25%, yet the North West drivers have more flexible terms and conditions that came with that.
Go North East offered Unite the same deal as the North West but they refused it as they didn't want the terms that came with it. Which is fair enough.
They also fucked the local communities over by going out on strike for 13 weeks. Not rolling strikes like the rail workers. They also reneged on deals. Go North East, before the major strike happened, yielded to their demands and they decided it wasn't enough and went on strike anyway.
If a bus driver loses their license due to breaking the law when driving they only have themselves to blame. If a bus driver performs a close pass to me, an elderly and vulnerable cyclist, which makes me feel endangered and unsafe then they need to be held to account.
Plenty of people report errant drivers. There is a whole twitter community of those who do it.
Oh, and no need to be rude either. I am perfectly sane. Disagree with what I do by all means but be civil.
Loads of the bloody things round here. It isn't exactly a hotbed of Socialism in our street!
IIRC they are notorious for being the car of choice for people who use the most extreme car financing products to buy them.
@rcs1000 probably has a good view of that industry, but it's my understanding that the more fun car finance is looking really shakey - products being withdrawn, and companies losing a lot of money. I've heard suggestions that a major collapse is quite possible.
Very Telegraph article, by the person who has the rantalong hat today.
For the current middle-aged, middle-class generation there are three main signs that you’ve “made it”, according to one observant Telegraph reader. Apparently, the list is as follows: a house with bifold doors, a Rolex on your wrist, and the pièce de résistance, a Range Rover parked on the drive.
How to tell people you're a wanker without telling them you're a wanker .
With - TBH - not many apologies to any owners; the things are a 99% unnecessary menace just for themselves, without even taking the behaviour of drivers they facilitate.
(Good morning all. I'm sure TSE is not just stirring !)
The good news is that the Telegraph writer thinks they are becoming uninsurable.
Maybe they are becoming uninsurable because they are being driven in large part by arrogant wankers who take massive financial risks in the financing. That sounds like a recipe for bad, aggressive driving.
A friend who worked at Coutts would laugh at that little list. For the truth in it - he had a job, for a while, binning clients from private wealth management who owned about 2% of some nice assets.
Range Rovers are uninsurable because people keep nicking them. It's that simple.
Around this part of London there's a group of criminals who consistently go around on mopeds and old Range Rovers.
Consequently I associate them with criminality.
The problem with Rangerotters and similar SUVs is that they're too wide to pass each other in narrow streets where two normal cars would have no problem. They cause thrombotic stop-go traffic jams in all our towns and villages, which must be as frustrating for their drivers as it is for everyone else. A differential road tax heavily skewed towards narrower vehicles would help.
Copy the Japanese rates on kei cars, then you can have a proper Brexit trade deal with them in return instead of a copy-paste of the EU one.
The tax on my Copen is 10800 yen (55 GBP), the insurance for 1 year is 15000 yen (80 GBP). Similar for my kei truck, except the tax is cheaper.
Everyone will get to drive around in little Jimny's and things, it'll be great.
1. Immediately reissue 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats and wield that power “very aggressively."
2. Clean out all the corrupt actors in our national security and intelligence apparatus.
3. Totally reform FISA courts.
4. Establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to declassify and publish all documents on the deep state’s spying, censorship, and corruption.
5. Launch a major crackdown on government leakers who collude with “fake news to deliberately weave false narratives and subvert our government and democracy.”
6. Make every inspector general’s office independent and physically separated from the departments they oversee.
7. Ask Congress to establish an independent auditing system to continually monitor our intelligence agencies.
8. Continue the effort launched by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal bureaucracy to new locations outside the “Washington Swamp.”
9. Work to ban federal bureaucrats from taking jobs at the companies they deal with and regulate.
10. Push a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress.
Can he let us know the truth about UFO's ?
He should publish a Manifesto. As he is of german ancestry, he should use the title 'My Struggle' in recognition of one of his spiritual forefathers.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
You don't get to be right by simply repeating an assertion in the face of evidence to the contrary. 148grss's graph clearly shows that that Houthi action only started having a significant impact on shipping a few weeks ago. While they may have been making a nuisance of themselves before then, that clearly wasn't on anything like the scale of the current attacks.
That graph only goes back to June 2020. They've been doing this since 2016.
The thing is, @148grss is trying to say the ship attacks - and the aim to close the Red Sea - are because of Israeli actions. I'm saying that's wrong, because of the precedents. You should be asking why Iran wants to close the Red Sea (again) - and it won't be anything to do with Israel.
That's simply not logical though. The fact that they may have tried to close the close the Red Sea in the past for other reasons doesn't mean they can't be trying to close it this time because of events in Israel. Not that there's likely to be a single reason anyway, but events in Israel are surely a major contributory factor. Do you really think that the Red Sea attacks would be happening at their current level if the Hamas attacks and subsequent Israeli invasion hadn't occurred?
It is very logical. For one thing, it is not the Houthis in charge, but Iran. Iran has tried to close the Red Sea before. Again, that had f-all to do with Israel. It led to the following escalation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
What do the Houthis want? What do the Iranians want?
I think there are many other contributory factors in play with the actions of Iran and the Houthis. Ignoring those is folly.
A short report from Channel 5 news about Operation SNAP (road crime reports via video uploads) in the Mercia Police Force. Blind bends are a theme of the examples.
One stat I had not picked up on before - 20% of drivers now run dashcams, which is where most reports come from.
I'm not sure of the 33516 reports in 2023 (that feels low to me - the London number alone was 15k+ in 2022), with 70% action taken (warning letter / educational course / FPN/ court summons).
I have uploaded and reported people to the Police via the Website. Mainly Durham but also Northumbria when I venture that far.
Since the Go North East bus strike concluded I have been, especially, targetting their bus drivers.
Why on earth are you doing that.
The reason they went on strike was because they were being paid 50% less than other bus drivers working for Go Ahead in other parts of the country l.
I really do wonder about the sanity of some people.
Also the only end result of your action is a bus driver possibly losing their license and with no one sane rushing to do the job a reduced bus service for those who need it.
Round here Arriva can’t find bus drivers at all because for what they are paying it ain’t worth the hassle - the warehouses pay more and offer better t&cs.
So basically you don’t believe people should be allowed to strike because it can be inconvenient to people
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
One year old babies? Or Gazan/West Bank teenagers brought up to hate Israel (much as Hitler Youth were raised in the 1930's)
Was the solution to teenagers in the Hitler Youth to kill them all? No. Indeed, one became Pope.
When Germany was defeated in 1945, its population underwent a process of understanding the moral black hole it had fallen into. This led the vast majority of Germans to recant any Nazi views, and made it possible for someone who had been utterly in the wrong to take a holier path.
Until such time as Germany was defeated; yes, teenagers in the Hitler Youth who were fighting *were* targets.
This has some parallels with the situation we were discussing, and also some rather significant differences.
We are about to witness the dissolution of the British Museum, over the next thirty years. Indeed, I wonder if the very concept of a western museum, of global civilisation, is at an end
1) If Britain wants to be a global player going one to one with other countries, we may have to ameliorate the diplomatic tension by giving back some of the stuff we stole from them and 2) we did steal that stuff from them, so we don't really have a leg to stand on. Imagine if 100-150 years ago the French nicked Stonehenge from us and now just had it in a museum - I think people here would be clamouring for it back.
I don't think someone who encourages the Houthis to sink ships in the Red Sea is really interested in Britain being a 'global player'.
You're right, I'm not. But others are.
So perhaps your advice is best left ignored? It's like taking advice from the sort of people who stone gays.
It wasn't advice as much as a comment on the situation. I'm glad that it's fine to support the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians without this level of vitriol, but remarking that the bad people (Houthis) have done a good thing (blockade the Red Sea to attempt to stop that) is considered akin to stoning gay people to death. It's also great to see the great continued tradition of threatening queer people by proxy; of course you would never threaten to stone me to death for my same sex relationships, you just happen to really enjoy using that imagery as a violent fantasy to warn me about how bad other people are.
You make several mistakes. The first is believing that the Houthis are doing this. They are not; the Iranians are doing it via the Houthis; the Houthis are proxies. The second is that the attacks on Red Sea shipping are in any way to do with what's happened since October; it is not, which is why the Houthis have been doing this since 2016.
You are siding with the Houthis and Iran; people who execute people for homosexuality. These are the people you support. The Houthis have killed thousands of people; it'd be good if you showed similar concern for them as you do for the Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression.
IMV it's not exactly wrong of me to point that out.
I mean, I can also say the Russians are goddamn evil for everything they do in their own country and are doing in Ukraine, but they're on the right side when it comes to Israel Palestine (even if they are massive hypocrites whilst doing so). You can point to an action that is good without that being an endorsement of every action they do.
As for when the Houthis started doing this, the data seems to show a pretty clear impact point:
Again, I don't like the Iranian government nor the Houthis in general. But on this issue a blockade is the right thing to do. If Israel was sanctioned, hell if the US just stopped giving them weapons, they wouldn't be able to propagate their genocidal intent. If the actions of the Houthis (whether orchestrated by Iran or not) are pressuring the West and Israel to stop what they're doing - that's good.
Yeah, you don't like them so much you support what they are doing. And a blockade is terrible for the world economy, which will hurt the poor most - people you pretend to care about. it's also a massive escalation, and threatens a much wider war.
You are wrong, factually and morally. You are backing the Iranian view of the world.
Sanctions always hurt the most poor - I guess that only matters when it is the most poor in the West (or the bottom line of international capital). And like I said previously, the government could always decide to support the poorer in society in that situation - it is a political choice to not (although I'm sure if any big companies are affected negatively bailouts would be forthcoming).
I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel.
Look the position of the West is simple - Israel is a Western ally, therefore they're allowed to do what they want, international law be damned. If we're supposed to swallow that, we can swallow bad people doing one (1) good thing and people saying "it is a good thing that those bad people are doing".
"I would say that the escalation is the bombing of civilians and other neighbouring countries - and that is again coming from Israel."
Have you heard about Iran bombing that well-known pro-Israel country, Pakistan? Or the thousands of missiles that have been fired into Israel from Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the years?
This is all you have - whataboutism. I have made my position very clear - you can say "that action is good" to people, a group, a state, whatever that you would typically go "I dislike or disagree with you". If you believe that is impossible - fine, then everyone is awful and you just have to start grading between the levels of awful.
Frankly attacking civilian shipping going about its lawful business is shameful and I am sad that you think it justified. That said, it fits your world view of the poor innocent Hamas freedom fighters and the Nazi Israelis. There is blame on all sides, but I honestly do not know what people expect Israel to do in the situation they are in. They are surrounded by states that want them extirminated. In the past they have been attacked by many of those states. They were attacked in October by terrorists and are now going after those terrorists. You call it genocide? Genocide is deliberately wiping out a race or people. Ask the Jews in Israel about that - some still remember from WW2. The Houthis are acting as terrorists too.
I wonder if any Holocaust survivors, Jewish people or Jewish academics who specialise in genocide have called what Israel are doing a genocide? Let me just quickly look... Oh, there are lots of them, and they've been saying it for a while. Huh. Who'd have thought? Maybe my position is also informed by the myriad of Jewish activists for peace or non-Zionist Jewish people?
It would also be great if there was a court that had some jurisdiction over claiming if things were genocide and if loads of lawyers from multiple countries came together to make an argument in front of that court to give the evidence of genocide and genocidal intent, including statements from politicians and how those statements have been interpreted by troops on the ground. A shame that such a thing does not exist and that this didn't happen. Wait... sorry, when looking for Jewish people who have called this a genocide I also fell across the 5 hours of testimony at the ICJ. Huh. Wow.
So some people claim it is a genocide - that's it then? All done. Great.
I don't want another person to die in Gaza. I think they need a two state solution. Sadly too many who have power in those and neighbouring states think a 'better' outcome is possible. For the avoidance of doubt, many of Israel's enemies think wiping out Israel is still possible and are trying to achieve it. Israel has not helped itself with settlers in the West Bank.
I
Your argument was "it can't be a genocide because Jewish people / Holocaust survivors know what a genocide is" and so I told you to look into Jewish people and Holocaust survivors who have called this a genocide - including an Israeli Jewish academic who has specialised in the study of genocides. But I'm the one who is just shrugging my shoulders going "well, some people say this, some say that - who are we to say?"
No, that was not my argument. But the Nazis and their allies (never forget the Nazis did not act alone) tried to exterminate every jew that they could. I don't see the equivalent happening in Gaza. I see a war, with one side holding babies hostage, and the other, equipped with heavy weapons trying to win an asymmetric war against an enemy that is not ready to discuss stopping.
'Their' added for clarity, before some twonk thinks I am blaming the USA, UK and Canada...
And genocide is not defined just by exterminating everyone of a specific race or ethnicity, it also includes the forced migration of a race or ethnicity from their land - such as trying to push roughly 2 million people into the Sinai Peninsula or onto an "artificial island off of Gaza". Indeed - the first part of the Nazi extermination of Jewish people was forced migration (something that a lot of Europe reacted to by refusing to accept Jewish refugees into their countries because they too were massively antisemitic)
If Ukraine wins its war, there will need to be another mass expulsion of Russians who have settled in Crimea / Donbas since 2014. Trying to create a state, working on the basis of the current population, is unworkable given Russia's forced resettlements and Russifications since then.
Talking of ticket-splitting on trains, I've just noticed that a return from B'ham to Bournemouth is £123 but if you split the tickets it's £71, a saving of about 42%.
Sounds like a route where Cross Country set the through fare, but other operators set the fares for the splits.
Whatever the ‘explanation’ it is effing moronic.
Is there a case for set price per mile? Or does that not work?
The whole point of train fares for last 30 years has been to price people off the network due to capacity issues.
Which means you have lines along the route (almost like zones) where prices rapidly increase as you cross them 1 example here is Darlington - York very expensive, Yet Darlington to Northallerton and then Northallerton to York is quite reasonable because Northallerton is in a different region so no line is crossed
Yes - and why if you are free to travel at quiet times it can be stupidly cheap.
Years ago I needed a one way ticket to travel to pick up a new car. I was not going to use the train on the way back. Yet the ticket for the return was only one pound more. Madness.
I live in London and do about 600 miles a month. 500 of those are motorway miles visiting family (or very occasionally out of town for work). 90 of those miles are driving around while staying with family in the countryside (public transport out there: nonexistent). 10 of those miles are me pottering back and forth once a week in London to do a Big Shop or similar. But I more or less don't drive in London.
I have a cheap, second hand car I've owned for a decade and owes me nothing. No monthly payments, no midlife crisis-mobile, no keeping up with the joneses. My insurance is cheap because it's a car nobody would ever want to steal. My MPG is ok-ish (40 in town, 50 on the motorway). Servicing costs are minimal.
I actually considered getting rid of the car this year, but worked out the equivalent train travel would cost me 2x as much. And that's before factoring in the inconvenience of not being able to get around or having to rely on taxis once I reach my destination.
Like it or not, the car is the cheapest, most convenient way of navigating most of the country outside of central London or other big well serviced cities (Manchester? Newcastle?). And this is me travelling alone. If I was travelling with just one other person, costs would be halved again - and they're already half the cost of train travel. My friends with young kids have done similar calculations and the numbers for public transport just don't stack up.
I don't like this fact. I prefer the train. It's better for the environment, and I can read or watch a movie or do some work, instead of a gruelling motorway drive. But the costs and convenience factor just don't stack up. That's before you throw in the regular strikes that mean you can't plan ahead for anything these days.
I have the option of the train to work, but its probably 50 minutes, plus 15-20 to walk to the station then either a bus (if its not full of students, which it often is) or another 30 minute walk. Or I drive in 30 mins.
So I drive.
Same. Last year I was working in a medium sized regional town, I had the option of a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, at least a 10 minute wait for the bus (sometimes 20 - they rarely ran to time), a 10 minute journey (thanks to bus lanes), then another 25 minute walk to work (or a 20 min wait for another bus to do a second 10 min journey as no connections). Total time: 50-60 mins.
Or I could drive it in 15-20 mins depending on traffic. With the return journey, that's at least an hour a day saved, often more like an hour and a half. Not to mention not being rained on etc.
Also: audiobooks make driving much more tolerable
You can lose yourself in a good book, the miles slip by
Podcast for me. The drive is an excellent time to devote to myself.
UK rail tickets, as part of capacity vs revenue optimisation reflect demand more closely, but also follow a policy of a greater cost contribution from the traveller.
I think rail tickets will be up for reform - on occasion I have had up to 20 separate credit-card sized pieces of card in my hand without split-tickets, and I am familiar with people having 50 or 60 for a single journey if eg they are taking a child and both having cycles.
I can't see that lasting very long.
Who uses paper tickets any more? Just use Trainline. Splits the ticket automatically and sends QR codes to your phone and watch. Yes there is a booking fee- but it’s about a quid.
Comments
Yes the aim must be to get to "normal" drinking. 2 or 3 days a week, social drinking, maybe one day with a bottle at home, the rest dry. If I can do that I will be happy, it will still be three hundred times the weekly recommended thimble of weak beer but for me it will be a real achievement. And of course it goes hand in puffy hand with weight loss
Booze doesn't necessarily translate to calories like food does, it is less bioavailable - its why alkies are often skinny - but booze does lower the inhibitions which leads to snacks, takeaways and midnight feasts
Anyway, well done you on staying dry and losing several kilos. We will get there. PB Weight-and-Winewatchers Works!
On the question of the post-PR political landscape it's not always wise to go with how politics has evolved in other countriues which use some form of PR.
A lot would depend on the system - an MMP style system would still allow for a single centre-left and a single centre-right party (Australia and New Zealand for example). A lot would also depend on the historical evolution of political movements (Ireland and Israel are examples of where the politics has developed from the indpendence struggle).
You obviously have those states with strong regional identities as well.
Go down a more purely proportional route such as STV and the tensions on the broad coalition of parties become more evident. The issue then becomes whwere the fault lines are - particular issues, personalities or both. You can have quite similar parties which are adversarial because of a long unresolved internal schism or personal dispute.
The Liberal Party split more because of the acrimony between Lloyd George and Asquith - Labour split in the early 1980s on the issues of defence and EEC membership. The Conservatives have had problems with free trade in the past so all things are possible.
STV also allows an individual to in effect form their own party or "list". You could have a "Boris Johnson List" for example of candidates personally endorsed by the leader.
The exception to this is........ Wales!
How many similar practices would Trump bring in when he agglomerates as much power as possible to himself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BduAUenHAPY
They wanted pay parity with the North West, North West drivers were on more, around 25%, yet the North West drivers have more flexible terms and conditions that came with that.
Go North East offered Unite the same deal as the North West but they refused it as they didn't want the terms that came with it. Which is fair enough.
They also fucked the local communities over by going out on strike for 13 weeks. Not rolling strikes like the rail workers. They also reneged on deals. Go North East, before the major strike happened, yielded to their demands and they decided it wasn't enough and went on strike anyway.
If a bus driver loses their license due to breaking the law when driving they only have themselves to blame. If a bus driver performs a close pass to me, an elderly and vulnerable cyclist, which makes me feel endangered and unsafe then they need to be held to account.
Plenty of people report errant drivers. There is a whole twitter community of those who do it.
Oh, and no need to be rude either. I am perfectly sane. Disagree with what I do by all means but be civil.
The tax on my Copen is 10800 yen (55 GBP), the insurance for 1 year is 15000 yen (80 GBP). Similar for my kei truck, except the tax is cheaper.
Everyone will get to drive around in little Jimny's and things, it'll be great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
What do the Houthis want? What do the Iranians want?
I think there are many other contributory factors in play with the actions of Iran and the Houthis. Ignoring those is folly.
Until such time as Germany was defeated; yes, teenagers in the Hitler Youth who were fighting *were* targets.
This has some parallels with the situation we were discussing, and also some rather significant differences.