Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
In WWII, the Americans were landing 25,000 tons on their landing beaches. Directly, not via the Mulberry harbour.
Per day.
That was after spending several years building up lots of landing craft. Even the modern US Navy. Over 11,000 landing craft were built by the US during ww2. Not all would have been at Normandy, but a lot would - 3,000 on D-Day alone. Besides, landing craft require a permanent military presence on the beach. A pier does not: the military can stand off on the ships once it is constructed, and the UN/aid agencies can drive the trucks up to the ships (*)
Piers are much better IMO.
(*) I do wonder about truck bombs being driven up to the ships, though...
The US would be ashore to provide security. First thing they would do.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
In WWII, the Americans were landing 25,000 tons on their landing beaches. Directly, not via the Mulberry harbour.
Per day.
That was after spending several years building up lots of landing craft. Even the modern US Navy. Over 11,000 landing craft were built by the US during ww2. Not all would have been at Normandy, but a lot would - 3,000 on D-Day alone. Besides, landing craft require a permanent military presence on the beach. A pier does not: the military can stand off on the ships once it is constructed, and the UN/aid agencies can drive the trucks up to the ships (*)
Piers are much better IMO.
(*) I do wonder about truck bombs being driven up to the ships, though...
The US would be ashore to provide security. First thing they would do.
from what was said, Biden said no troops on the ground. Although whether intertidal regions mean 'ground' is another matter.
This is a pretty typical street in central Medellin. I was unable to capture images of the many many dtug addicts lying comatose - or actually dead - because the lively ones looked like they wanted to kill me
Drugs and gun trade with the USA. Drugs go north, guns go south. Its killing both the US and Latin America, with no real desire to stop it, because those in power do quite well out of the deal.
Yup - it's not like the Americans went to sleep after WWII. Logistics was always their thing, and given the difference between what you can bring in via a port and via air....
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
It's the same sort of question as What would have happened if Blair had said 'No' to Iraq, Afghanistan etc, as Wilson said No to Viet Nam.
Cameron leaving in 2016, like Blair going into Iraq, constituted the act by which they betrayed themselves. When we needed the grown up in the room Cameron had vanished.
The really big calls, at this level, are the ones which count. PMs have information and sources we don't. We trust them. For Cameron to promote a referendum where his own MPs and party members were free to act on the side they supported when privately he could only carry on with one of only two possible results was catastrophic. Many moderates voted, even if reluctantly, for Brexit on the basis that neither choice was optimal, but Cameron knew what he was doing and had a plan for both outcomes. They were let down. He can't recover fully, despite his many virtues. Blair ditto.
While I agree with all of that, Cameron is an undeniably good foreign secretary.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
In WWII, the Americans were landing 25,000 tons on their landing beaches. Directly, not via the Mulberry harbour.
Per day.
That was after spending several years building up lots of landing craft. Even the modern US Navy. Over 11,000 landing craft were built by the US during ww2. Not all would have been at Normandy, but a lot would - 3,000 on D-Day alone. Besides, landing craft require a permanent military presence on the beach. A pier does not: the military can stand off on the ships once it is constructed, and the UN/aid agencies can drive the trucks up to the ships (*)
Piers are much better IMO.
(*) I do wonder about truck bombs being driven up to the ships, though...
The US would be ashore to provide security. First thing they would do.
from what was said, Biden said no troops on the ground. Although whether intertidal regions mean 'ground' is another matter.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
In WWII, the Americans were landing 25,000 tons on their landing beaches. Directly, not via the Mulberry harbour.
Per day.
That was after spending several years building up lots of landing craft. Even the modern US Navy. Over 11,000 landing craft were built by the US during ww2. Not all would have been at Normandy, but a lot would - 3,000 on D-Day alone. Besides, landing craft require a permanent military presence on the beach. A pier does not: the military can stand off on the ships once it is constructed, and the UN/aid agencies can drive the trucks up to the ships (*)
Piers are much better IMO.
(*) I do wonder about truck bombs being driven up to the ships, though...
The US would be ashore to provide security. First thing they would do.
from what was said, Biden said no troops on the ground. Although whether intertidal regions mean 'ground' is another matter.
Apparently the Yanks want to build a port in Gaza to get aid in. This makes some sense to me: it bypasses Bibi, and there is less likelihood for contraband such as explosives to get through when compared to the Egyptian crossing point. It may allow large amounts of aid to flow through.
The professor I heard on r5L earlier was sarcastically sceptical, but perhaps too much so (another expert from the expert farm?). Yes, there are operational difficulties, and making a Mulberry Harbour would takes ages. But it doesn't have to be that scale immediately, and the US Navy/Marines are hardly strangers to logistics. It also stops some of the operational difficulties of airdrops (*)
The professor sounded to me like he was wishing it to fail. I also think his suggestion of using Jaffa Port was a non-starter, simply because it is Israeli.
My biggest question is how the aid gets distributed from the harbour.
Stage one would be straight on the beach. LCAC 100, LCAC, or conventional landing craft.
While that is rolling, you'd build a breakwater - a zillion tons of boulders. You can get a commercial quote for that these days - specialist ships that do that by the mile.
Piers would be interlocking sheet piling. You drive that in multiple locations to speed up the work. Once you are vaguely watertight, pump out, concrete.
Water depth? - dredge like mad. The spoil can be used in other parts of the harbour.
To put it another way, the following was built a hundred years ago. Everything solid you sea in the foreground was built out of the sea. Pretty much by hand. Didn't take long. Imagine in the modern. machine age - multiply by 100x easily.
Yeah, the guy I heard interviewed made it sound like it would be months of work. It may be to get a semi-permanent facility; but to get infrastructure allowing useful amounts of aid out might be doable within a week.
But again, *distributing* the aid within Gaza might be the issue. Hopefully the UN (not Hamas,,,) can do that - and the more aid that goes in, the less likely it is for desperate people to harm distribution.
In WWII, the Americans were landing 25,000 tons on their landing beaches. Directly, not via the Mulberry harbour.
Per day.
That was after spending several years building up lots of landing craft. Even the modern US Navy. Over 11,000 landing craft were built by the US during ww2. Not all would have been at Normandy, but a lot would - 3,000 on D-Day alone. Besides, landing craft require a permanent military presence on the beach. A pier does not: the military can stand off on the ships once it is constructed, and the UN/aid agencies can drive the trucks up to the ships (*)
Piers are much better IMO.
(*) I do wonder about truck bombs being driven up to the ships, though...
The US would be ashore to provide security. First thing they would do.
from what was said, Biden said no troops on the ground. Although whether intertidal regions mean 'ground' is another matter.
I am a natural Tory. I am sick of the Party. Will noone rid us of this ghastly administration. They've screwed their main support by this budget... they are scum.... Fuckem. Fuckem.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
I am a natural Tory. I am sick of the Party. Will noone rid us of this ghastly administration. They've screwed their main support by this budget... they are scum.... Fuckem. Fuckem.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
I asked @AnthropicAI's Claude 3 to invent a new word relating to consciousness.
Claude's new word is so good, I think it should be added to the dictionary. @MerriamWebster
Continua (noun) - The subjective experience of being a single, continuous self that persists through time, characterized by a unified stream of consciousness, memories, and sense of personal identity. It is the feeling that one's experiences, thoughts, and actions flow seamlessly from one moment to the next, creating a coherent narrative of the self, despite the physical and psychological changes that occur throughout one's life. https://twitter.com/TimSuzman/status/1766155122739150923
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
It's the same sort of question as What would have happened if Blair had said 'No' to Iraq, Afghanistan etc, as Wilson said No to Viet Nam.
Cameron leaving in 2016, like Blair going into Iraq, constituted the act by which they betrayed themselves. When we needed the grown up in the room Cameron had vanished.
The really big calls, at this level, are the ones which count. PMs have information and sources we don't. We trust them. For Cameron to promote a referendum where his own MPs and party members were free to act on the side they supported when privately he could only carry on with one of only two possible results was catastrophic. Many moderates voted, even if reluctantly, for Brexit on the basis that neither choice was optimal, but Cameron knew what he was doing and had a plan for both outcomes. They were let down. He can't recover fully, despite his many virtues. Blair ditto.
While I agree with all of that, Cameron is an undeniably good foreign secretary.
He seems to be doing an ok job.
I wonder if it would benefit us for it to become a constitutional tradition that the foreign secretary should be a former PM. It’s an ideal placement: immediate international respect, strong network, experience.
Major, Blair, Brown, probably May all could have been very good Foreign Secretaries, as well as Cameron. (Former PMs who are also former foreign secs not so much... But recent years are untypical.)
Rishi gave away £10bn in the Budget, and in the first poll dropped 2pts. He insists, like Theresa, that "nothing has changed". He has no legacy to leave, no thirst for the backbenches, no hope from the polls. Why call an election now?
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
The inspiration for the US was the existing liberal tradition in England, crossed with the democratic aspirations of the French revolution. Hence the replacing of appointed offices with elected officials at quite low levels - getting rid of the Squirearchy.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Chile seems to do ok, and we’ll see about Argentina once Milei has settled in.
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Chile is the nicest country in South America by a distance - in terms of safety and crime and general development
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Chile is the nicest country in South America by a distance - in terms of safety and crime and general development
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
Pretoria feels like somewhere in Pennsylvania, or the Mid West. Or Croydon.
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Chile is the nicest country in South America by a distance - in terms of safety and crime and general development
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
Pretoria feels like somewhere in Pennsylvania, or the Mid West. Or Croydon.
It’s really dangerous now. By some metrics the worst in South Africa
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
We went to Soweto on our trip to Johannesburg but were disturbed by the obvious poverty on one side and the wealth in gated areas on the other
Have been to Buenos Aires which we found fascinating and Ushuaia which was an experience as we landed with the Andes very close on our starboard side
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
We went to Soweto on our trip to Johannesburg but were disturbed by the obvious poverty on one side and the wealth in gated areas on the other
You can see similar contrasts in wealth close together if you go for a walk around many parts of London.
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Chile is the nicest country in South America by a distance - in terms of safety and crime and general development
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
Pretoria feels like somewhere in Pennsylvania, or the Mid West. Or Croydon.
It’s really dangerous now. By some metrics the worst in South Africa
Pretoria most dangerous in SA:
Not entirely surprising as it seems to exist only as a government centre, no real business hub thus much less mixed mercantile population, little community cohesion etc. Government cities are odd places - take Washington DC.
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Chile is the nicest country in South America by a distance - in terms of safety and crime and general development
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
Pretoria feels like somewhere in Pennsylvania, or the Mid West. Or Croydon.
It’s really dangerous now. By some metrics the worst in South Africa
Pretoria most dangerous in SA:
Not entirely surprising as it seems to exist only as a government centre, no real business hub thus much less mixed mercantile population, little community cohesion etc. Government cities are odd places - take Washington DC.
Within 25 minutes of of my first ever trip to Pretoria I saw a car ram raid an off licence so as to steal the stock. This was about 3 in the afternoon and 4 blocks from the Parliament
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
We went to Soweto on our trip to Johannesburg but were disturbed by the obvious poverty on one side and the wealth in gated areas on the other
You can see similar contrasts in wealth close together if you go for a walk around many parts of London.
Soweto was very clearly poor, but I was used to the utter squalor of shanty towns in other parts of Africa or the subcontinent. Soweto felt more like a poor left behind community in Europe or America.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
We went to Soweto on our trip to Johannesburg but were disturbed by the obvious poverty on one side and the wealth in gated areas on the other
You can see similar contrasts in wealth close together if you go for a walk around many parts of London.
It's pretty stark in RSA, and undeniably a legacy of Apartheid.
They used to advertise for tourism with the slogan "a World in One Country" and that is true in so many ways. The juxtaposition of gated privilege and desperate feral poverty is so like the rest of the world, but for most of us the two are further apart.
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Chile is the nicest country in South America by a distance - in terms of safety and crime and general development
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
Pretoria feels like somewhere in Pennsylvania, or the Mid West. Or Croydon.
It’s really dangerous now. By some metrics the worst in South Africa
Pretoria most dangerous in SA:
Not entirely surprising as it seems to exist only as a government centre, no real business hub thus much less mixed mercantile population, little community cohesion etc. Government cities are odd places - take Washington DC.
Within 25 minutes of of my first ever trip to Pretoria I saw a car ram raid an off licence so as to steal the stock. This was about 3 in the afternoon and 4 blocks from the Parliament
I had similar experiences on two trips to California: driving a car hire out of LAX and first thing I see is a man spreadeagled over the back of a car with a cop pointing a gun into his back (later that night I hear loud noises outside the hotel and run to the window to discover they’re filming a car chase scene for a Spider-Man movie), and first night in San Francisco and there’s a fatal shooting on the street outside. Things like that make America seem very exotic.
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
We went to Soweto on our trip to Johannesburg but were disturbed by the obvious poverty on one side and the wealth in gated areas on the other
Have been to Buenos Aires which we found fascinating and Ushuaia which was an experience as we landed with the Andes very close on our starboard side
Ushuaia is wonderful! Did you try the famous spider crab? Or is it King crab? Brilliant anyway
For all its many many problems urban Argentina is much calmer than cities in Mexico (or here)
Buenos Aires feels sad and faded in many places and a touch edgy in the barrios but you aren’t constantly worried about robbery or attack
Where would Max go if he couldn't stay at Red Bull? Mercedes have a vacancy, now *that* would be funny Don't think Ferrari and McLaren have a space free. Maybe Aston Martin, after all Alonso is so old he was racing in F1 before todays driver for Ferrari, Oliver Bearman, was even born!
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
Mostly that was about the Euros, which were PR elections, so people were not forced to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. Given a free choice a lot of folk reject the false choice forced on us by FPTP.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
I don’t do so: I don’t pretend to explain South America.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
Where would Max go if he couldn't stay at Red Bull? Mercedes have a vacancy, now *that* would be funny Don't think Ferrari and McLaren have a space free. Maybe Aston Martin, after all Alonso is so old he was racing in F1 before todays driver for Ferrari, Oliver Bearman, was even born!
I believe Toto has said they might be prepared to accept Marko…
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
We went to Soweto on our trip to Johannesburg but were disturbed by the obvious poverty on one side and the wealth in gated areas on the other
Have been to Buenos Aires which we found fascinating and Ushuaia which was an experience as we landed with the Andes very close on our starboard side
Ushuaia is wonderful! Did you try the famous spider crab? Or is it King crab? Brilliant anyway
For all its many many problems urban Argentina is much calmer than cities in Mexico (or here)
Buenos Aires feels sad and faded in many places and a touch edgy in the barrios but you aren’t constantly worried about robbery or attack
Unfortunately I am allergic to crab
However we did sail from there on our Antarctic expedition which was out of this world
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
I don’t do so: I don’t pretend to explain South America.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
Indeed. And any list of the world’s most violent cities will have several from the USA - the only advanced nation to make that claim
So it is definitely a factor. The guns alone…
The tragedy of Medellin is that it should be wonderful. An incredible setting in the Andean foothills. A glorious climate of warm eternal spring with sunny days and coolish nights
Surrounded by epic landscapes. And the coffee IS imperious
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
I don’t do so: I don’t pretend to explain South America.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
To put it in perspective, Colombia is relatively peaceful now, but has been wracked by civil war of brutal intensity from 1948 up to just a few years ago. One of the longest and most bitter civil wars of the modern era, and one that rarely made the news in the West.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
This is sketchier than any African city I’ve ever been in. And I’ve been to joburg
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
I found Joburg surprisingly pleasant and non-sketchy the one time I went there. Had a drive around Soweto and stopped at a couple of little bars, and if all seemed quite OK. Probably helped that the sun was shining and flowers were out.
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
Chile is the nicest country in South America by a distance - in terms of safety and crime and general development
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
Anthony Bourdain did quite a nice trip to Chile and one in Costa Rica as I remember. Quite enjoyed himself in various ways.
As to other comments about Venezuela - an acquaintance of mine who runs a cam site mentioned that most of the performers from there refer to themselves as Columbian as it's a bit more 'High Status'.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
I don’t do so: I don’t pretend to explain South America.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
Indeed. And any list of the world’s most violent cities will have several from the USA - the only advanced nation to make that claim
So it is definitely a factor. The guns alone…
The tragedy of Medellin is that it should be wonderful. An incredible setting in the Andean foothills. A glorious climate of warm eternal spring with sunny days and coolish nights
Surrounded by epic landscapes. And the coffee IS imperious
Was out last night for work drinks. Involved playing beer pong with a bunch of twenty-somethings but I’ve never been one for hierarchies.
One older guy suggested the US would be better off had it avoided the Revolution. I suggested flippantly, “yeah, but Canada”.
Would the world be better off with a Greater Canada?
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
I don’t do so: I don’t pretend to explain South America.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
Indeed. And any list of the world’s most violent cities will have several from the USA - the only advanced nation to make that claim
So it is definitely a factor. The guns alone…
The tragedy of Medellin is that it should be wonderful. An incredible setting in the Andean foothills. A glorious climate of warm eternal spring with sunny days and coolish nights
Surrounded by epic landscapes. And the coffee IS imperious
Was out last night for work drinks. Involved playing beer pong with a bunch of twenty-somethings but I’ve never been one for hierarchies.
One older guy suggested the US would be better off had it avoided the Revolution. I suggested flippantly, “yeah, but Canada”.
Would the world be better off with a Greater Canada?
Without the revolution it wouldn't have been Greater Canada but Greater England.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
I'm well aware what the polls were - Labour got naff all too. As people punished the big two for not having a clear Brexit position. If it had been repeated in a GE we'd have had Prime Minister Jo Swinson leading a rainbow coalition against LoTO Nigel Farage. Once the parties got themselves a relatively clear Brexit position and the Tories a new leader they had to unite behind, it was inevitable people would coalesce back in a GE.
Now, that happened to be Boris, but it doesn't make him some kind of electoral magician. He is undoubtedly more skilled than Sunak, but said skills come with his downsides. If the Tories couldn't beat a man who at the time was the most unpopular Labour leader since the 1930s in an election, they might as well have given up.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
I don’t do so: I don’t pretend to explain South America.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
Indeed. And any list of the world’s most violent cities will have several from the USA - the only advanced nation to make that claim
So it is definitely a factor. The guns alone…
The tragedy of Medellin is that it should be wonderful. An incredible setting in the Andean foothills. A glorious climate of warm eternal spring with sunny days and coolish nights
Surrounded by epic landscapes. And the coffee IS imperious
Was out last night for work drinks. Involved playing beer pong with a bunch of twenty-somethings but I’ve never been one for hierarchies.
One older guy suggested the US would be better off had it avoided the Revolution. I suggested flippantly, “yeah, but Canada”.
Would the world be better off with a Greater Canada?
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
But we didn’t have cocaine, and a rich northern neighbour customer, who supplies plentiful guns, and spent several decades taking apart nascent democracies .. for the best of reasons.
Yeah I don’t think the proximity of the USA is helping. But it feels lazy to blame it all on the gringo. Especially when countries like Chile and Costa Rica seem to be relatively fine
I don’t do so: I don’t pretend to explain South America.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
Indeed. And any list of the world’s most violent cities will have several from the USA - the only advanced nation to make that claim
So it is definitely a factor. The guns alone…
The tragedy of Medellin is that it should be wonderful. An incredible setting in the Andean foothills. A glorious climate of warm eternal spring with sunny days and coolish nights
Surrounded by epic landscapes. And the coffee IS imperious
Was out last night for work drinks. Involved playing beer pong with a bunch of twenty-somethings but I’ve never been one for hierarchies.
One older guy suggested the US would be better off had it avoided the Revolution. I suggested flippantly, “yeah, but Canada”.
Would the world be better off with a Greater Canada?
Without the revolution it wouldn't have been Greater Canada but Greater England.
A British empire that still incorporated the USA wouid still utterly dominate the world today. No other nation would have dared to tske it on -certainly not Hitler
Meaning no world war 1 or 2? No communist revolution in Russia? No Holocaust?
It is very arguable that the world would be a vastly better place if they’d just let us Brits run the whole show forever
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
Conversely I’m not sure there’s anything anyone could say, any polling evidence, or catalogue of Johnson misdemeanours that could shake you from your faith, and that’s fine too. But just as you feel people are not able to give Johnson credit for rallying the right - and he did, he gave BXP enough to allow them to leave the field graciously - I’m not 100% convinced you’re ready to take on any contrary evidence either.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
And worth noting that for all their faults nearly all Latin American countries are now democracies of sorts. Most of Africa too, and large parts of Asia too.
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
And worth noting that for all their faults nearly all Latin American countries are now democracies of sorts. Most of Africa too, and large parts of Asia too.
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Is it?
Parts of Latin America have palpably declined into appalling violence in my lifetime. Mexico is the ultimate example. It is a much worse place now than it was 30-40 years ago
South Africa is maybe the equivalent in Africa, but of course the unique context and horror of apartheid makes it sui generis
And significant chunks of MENA are worse than they were 2 or 3 decades ago. The glib assumption that everything generally gets better is simplistic
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
And worth noting that for all their faults nearly all Latin American countries are now democracies of sorts. Most of Africa too, and large parts of Asia too.
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Is it?
Parts of Latin America have palpably declined into appalling violence in my lifetime. Mexico is the ultimate example. It is a much worse place now than it was 30-40 years ago
South Africa is maybe the equivalent in Africa, but of course the unique context and horror of apartheid makes it sui generis
And significant chunks of MENA are worse than they were 2 or 3 decades ago. The glib assumption that everything generally gets better is simplistic
Some places are better, some worse. You wouldn't have liked Phnom Penh or Saigon 30-40 years ago, though Kashmir was nicer as was Syria. You wouldn't have gone to Algeria then, though by all accounts it's lovely again.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
And worth noting that for all their faults nearly all Latin American countries are now democracies of sorts. Most of Africa too, and large parts of Asia too.
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Certainly more democracies than 100 years ago. Doesn't mean democratic leaders are perfect though of course eg the ex President of Honduras convicted of colluding with drugs lords today
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
I'm well aware what the polls were - Labour got naff all too. As people punished the big two for not having a clear Brexit position. If it had been repeated in a GE we'd have had Prime Minister Jo Swinson leading a rainbow coalition against LoTO Nigel Farage. Once the parties got themselves a relatively clear Brexit position and the Tories a new leader they had to unite behind, it was inevitable people would coalesce back in a GE.
Now, that happened to be Boris, but it doesn't make him some kind of electoral magician. He is undoubtedly more skilled than Sunak, but said skills come with his downsides. If the Tories couldn't beat a man who at the time was the most unpopular Labour leader since the 1930s in an election, they might as well have given up.
Well they did fail to beat that man 18 months earlier.
Everyone theorising why Latin America is so violent but we don’t really know. My own guess would be that settler colonies import the mores and norms of the home country at the time and Iberia in 16th and 17th centuries was a fairly unequal and violent place, rather like 20th century Sicily, with the latifundia land ownership model made worse by actual slavery. But I’m sure there are other reasons.
But Britain in the 18th century was murderous and brutal and the home of Gin Lane
We were a proto-capitalist society, already urbanising and already part way through our demographic transition. Though we did in effect maintain a latifundia system in Ireland.
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
Latin America needs to choose between communism, fascism or Islam
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
Latin America was of course run mostly by Fascist military dictators in the 20th century, including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
And worth noting that for all their faults nearly all Latin American countries are now democracies of sorts. Most of Africa too, and large parts of Asia too.
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Is it?
Parts of Latin America have palpably declined into appalling violence in my lifetime. Mexico is the ultimate example. It is a much worse place now than it was 30-40 years ago
South Africa is maybe the equivalent in Africa, but of course the unique context and horror of apartheid makes it sui generis
And significant chunks of MENA are worse than they were 2 or 3 decades ago. The glib assumption that everything generally gets better is simplistic
Some places are better, some worse. You wouldn't have liked Phnom Penh or Saigon 30-40 years ago, though Kashmir was nicer as was Syria. You wouldn't have gone to Algeria then, though by all accounts it's lovely again.
I bet I wouid have loved Phnom Penh in the 1920s tho. It was apparently idyllic and the colonial rule was relatively benign politic and decorous - one of the better outposts of the French Empire
And I wouid surely have preferred South Yorkshire when it was rolling hills and pretty villages; before the Industrial Revolution turned much of it into a toilet
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
Conversely I’m not sure there’s anything anyone could say, any polling evidence, or catalogue of Johnson misdemeanours that could shake you from your faith, and that’s fine too. But just as you feel people are not able to give Johnson credit for rallying the right - and he did, he gave BXP enough to allow them to leave the field graciously - I’m not 100% convinced you’re ready to take on any contrary evidence either.
But the polling evidence is there! 2019 Tory voters, who have now said ‘don’t know’ or ‘reform’ prefer Boris to any other Tory leader. It’s not just a hunch of mine.
But listen, I am wasting my time; Boris could come back and win the next GE & people on here would find an excuse to say it was someone else’s failing or it was rigged. He is the most successful UK politician of this century, has won a multitude of big elections under almost every voting system, his record speaks for itself. I won’t have this argument again, it’s too ridiculous now
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
Conversely I’m not sure there’s anything anyone could say, any polling evidence, or catalogue of Johnson misdemeanours that could shake you from your faith, and that’s fine too. But just as you feel people are not able to give Johnson credit for rallying the right - and he did, he gave BXP enough to allow them to leave the field graciously - I’m not 100% convinced you’re ready to take on any contrary evidence either.
But the polling evidence is there! 2019 Tory voters, who have now said ‘don’t know’ or ‘reform’ prefer Boris to any other Tory leader. It’s not just a hunch of mine.
But listen, I am wasting my time; Boris could come back and win the next GE & people on here would find an excuse to say it was someone else’s failing or it was rigged. He is the most successful UK politician of this century, has won a multitude of big elections under almost every voting system, his record speaks for itself. I won’t have this argument again, it’s too ridiculous now
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
Conversely I’m not sure there’s anything anyone could say, any polling evidence, or catalogue of Johnson misdemeanours that could shake you from your faith, and that’s fine too. But just as you feel people are not able to give Johnson credit for rallying the right - and he did, he gave BXP enough to allow them to leave the field graciously - I’m not 100% convinced you’re ready to take on any contrary evidence either.
The point is fairly simple, if you're not blinkered by Boris-worship. He has definite skills as a campaigner and politician. Those also come with downsides - and he just isn't as popular as cheerleaders would like to suggest. His personal ratings were slightly below what Starmer's have been hovering around for a while.
In the case of 2019, he can take some of the credit, sure. But you can also look to the Vote Leave team who got back together and helped put together the strategy to get a symbolic deal over the line, and used the prospect of Corbyn/a 2nd Ref to get Farage and the Tory right in line. That team has now largely fallen out, in part due to Boris' failings as a leader. Upside and downside. Good frontman. Woeful manager. Getting everyone on the leave side on the same page was what made it all possible, rather than some magic elixir only Boris possesses.
Which is relevant to whether they'd be better off with him. Quite possibly in terms of having a better salesman with better instincts than Sunak. But maybe not by as much as one thinks - as he'd have the same flaws, face the same problems and was game changingly popular , just more so than a dire opponent,
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
He's gone. No point in pining for him.
Consigned to the dustbin of history.
Nonetheless he was the right man for that moment, for the party. It worked.
I really don't think he would be the right man for this moment, but they do appear to need the right someone to overcome the death spiral they are in, and they don't have that.
Note, for example, the rates in the Bahamas and Barbados.
For sure
Wherever they are and under almost any conditions, black people commit more murder than any other ethnicity. At the same time they are generally murdered at a greater rate, too. A horrible tragedy
It is facile that even discussing this is regarded as “racist”
So much in Colombia today is regulated by murder or the threat of murder. Often even if "everybody" knows that X murdered Y, the police won't do anything unless a relative of Y makes a report. The official murder rate is high (although lower than in Brazil or Jamaica), but the real murder rate is MUCH higher. Everybody knows several people who were murdered, including some who were murdered by known assailants who never got arrested let alone charged or convicted. Don't get into any bar fights or argy-bargy on the roads. And it was worse still under Pablo Escobar. Typical conversation among 20-somethings socialising at that time: where's Juan? Oh, someone killed him.
As for the civil war, the death rate in that was similar to the rate during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, per population. This isn't an attempt to downplay the horrors of either of those conflicts. Just that neither of them was on the same scale as the civil wars in say Russia or Spain. Most of the murders for the past 50 years or so in Colombia have been unrelated to it.
One change in Latin America that other commenters seem not to have noticed is the rise of Evangelicalism in the last 50 years, especially among the poor, and its effect on politics:
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
One change in Latin America that other commenters seem not to have noticed is the rise of Evangelicalism in the last 50 years, especially among the poor, and its effect on politics:
So much in Colombia today is regulated by murder or the threat of murder. Often even if "everybody" knows that X murdered Y, the police won't do anything unless a relative of Y makes a report. The official murder rate is high (although lower than in Brazil or Jamaica), but the real murder rate is MUCH higher. Everybody knows several people who were murdered, including some who were murdered by known assailants who never got arrested let alone charged or convicted. Don't get into any bar fights or argy-bargy on the roads. And it was worse still under Pablo Escobar. Typical conversation among 20-somethings socialising at that time: where's Juan? Oh, someone killed him.
As for the civil war, the death rate in that was similar to the rate during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, per population. This isn't an attempt to downplay the horrors of either of those conflicts. Just that neither of them was on the same scale as the civil wars in say Russia or Spain. Most of the murders for the past 50 years or so in Colombia have been unrelated to it.
Interesting take there - welcome to the site, Donkeys.
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Trump wanted TikTok banned until last week. He tried to ban it himself with an executive order but lost in court (it needs legislation). What changed last week was apparently that he was paid off by a TikTok shareholder called Jeff Yass.
I think that'll be the end of it for now, unless Musk or Zuckerberg makes Trump a better offer? If Trump is opposed to a ban then the House GOP won't pass one, so it doesn't matter what Joe Biden would or wouldn't sign.
Everyone’s entitled to their view, and maybe I’m just plain wrong, but I find it staggering anyone can honestly believe the Tories wouldn’t be in much better shape had they not got rid of Boris. There’s no metric that shows it was a good move and, plenty that show it was a mistake, even if you take common sense out of the equation
It is quite obviously true, not because of anything about Boris. But because they simply wouldn't have had Truss. They would also be much better off if they had ditched Boris and gone for anyone vaguely competent. The moral of the story is less "don't ditch Boris" more "don't choose someone completely crackers as his successor".
As for Boris, well he would be facing the same overall troubles caused by past Tory policies, world events, and demographics. But likely be doing so with more elan. His superpower was always his ability and willingness to lie and boost beyond the level of any other politician. He's often bewildered opponents because he would come out with stuff everyone knew was hogwash, but sell it until it became treated as a baseline fact. Starmer eventually seemed to learn how to deal with it by simply giving him the rope.
So maybe he would be doing better. But the problem with that is it was always a bit like getting drunk on a night out. You can keep drinking and the night carries on and on. You keep enjoying yourself, but eventually you'll hit a wall and have to sleep or blackout - and you'll wake up with a stinking hangover. So I guess the question would be if Boris could have kept things going until the next election rather than really hitting a wall where it all fell apart and the chickens came home to roost.
He'd have still had to deal with the energy crisis fallout and the crunch on public services and living costs.
Then there's the scandals. The reason Tory MPs ditched Boris wasn't because they thought he'd become a complete electoral dud. It was because they felt they could no longer trust him not to create massive scandal after scandal and lie about it, forcing them to.
So absent the Truss factor I'd say it's a coinflip. There's a reasonable chance that, as polls show, his political skills and the loyalty to him of leave voters means the Tories are doing a bit better. But there's also a strong chance that either a) The shit hits the fan with broken promises and/or the public finances and he becomes a real hate figure or b) he wanders into one scandal too many and everyone's patience snaps.
Politicians have a certain number of lives and Boris wasted several of his on daft things that were his own personal failings.
What is true is that it's a pretty sad indictment of the Tory Party that they don't have a capable enough politician in their senior ranks without the downsides of Boris.
They could have gone the whole hog, not elected Boris as leader in the first place, and let Corbyn run the country these last 3-4 years
I don't think it required Boris to beat Corbyn. Boris was unpopular for a PM at the time of the 2019 election. It's just Corbyn was much, much more so as he no longer got the benefit of the doubt he got in 2017.
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
They were on 17% in the polls and got 8% in the Euros before Boris took over. It was an actual sorry state, not one we had to think up
The charts posted earlier showed what was happening though. There was a surge to minor parties for a few months in 2019 as people expressed their frustration with the Brexit deadlock. BXP surged as did the Lib Dems, at the expense of Tories and Labour respectively.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
This is an almost perfect example of the lengths people will go to in order to not give Boris any credit. I actually am aware there is no point in making the case for his sacking being a mistake to people who just ignore plain facts, but I am still somehow compelled to do so. A symptom of the PB psychological condition
Conversely I’m not sure there’s anything anyone could say, any polling evidence, or catalogue of Johnson misdemeanours that could shake you from your faith, and that’s fine too. But just as you feel people are not able to give Johnson credit for rallying the right - and he did, he gave BXP enough to allow them to leave the field graciously - I’m not 100% convinced you’re ready to take on any contrary evidence either.
But the polling evidence is there! 2019 Tory voters, who have now said ‘don’t know’ or ‘reform’ prefer Boris to any other Tory leader. It’s not just a hunch of mine.
But listen, I am wasting my time; Boris could come back and win the next GE & people on here would find an excuse to say it was someone else’s failing or it was rigged. He is the most successful UK politician of this century, has won a multitude of big elections under almost every voting system, his record speaks for itself. I won’t have this argument again, it’s too ridiculous now
But he won't come back.
He thinks he should.
And what if we enter World War 3 and need a Churchillian Statesmen and war hero leader to dig us out of a hole?
Off topic: Some people have a different way of preparing to celebrate International Women's Day: "DAKAR, Senegal — Nigeria has been rocked by two mass kidnappings in the past week, with the United Nations, government officials and local residents saying that hundreds of women and children were abducted in separate incidents. . . . The U.N., residents and local officials said that about 200 people, many of them women out collecting firewood, were kidnapped March 1 in Borno State, where residents have long been terrorized by Boko Haram, an Islamist extremist movement."
So one mass kidnapping by the usual suspects, and another likely by "bandits".
(Incidentally, when the previous kidnapping of girls during the Obama adminstration received so much attention, I learned that similar kidnappings had occurred of boys -- who were to be used as soldiers.)
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Trump seems to have not come to terms with what constitutes an "enemy" or an ally.
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
Trump seems to have not come to terms with what constitutes an "enemy" or an ally.
So much in Colombia today is regulated by murder or the threat of murder. Often even if "everybody" knows that X murdered Y, the police won't do anything unless a relative of Y makes a report. The official murder rate is high (although lower than in Brazil or Jamaica), but the real murder rate is MUCH higher. Everybody knows several people who were murdered, including some who were murdered by known assailants who never got arrested let alone charged or convicted. Don't get into any bar fights or argy-bargy on the roads. And it was worse still under Pablo Escobar. Typical conversation among 20-somethings socialising at that time: where's Juan? Oh, someone killed him.
As for the civil war, the death rate in that was similar to the rate during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, per population. This isn't an attempt to downplay the horrors of either of those conflicts. Just that neither of them was on the same scale as the civil wars in say Russia or Spain. Most of the murders for the past 50 years or so in Colombia have been unrelated to it.
Comments
George Mann
@sgfmann
·
28m
The i weekend: Budget falls flat as Tories lose votes
to Reform #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/sgfmann
If the Tory Party needed Boris to beat Corbyn, it's in an even sorrier state than we thought.
EDIT: This is in Gaza: https://www.tidetime.org/middle-east/palestine/khn-ynis.htm
OK, they're not very big tides...
I asked @AnthropicAI's Claude 3 to invent a new word relating to consciousness.
Claude's new word is so good, I think it should be added to the dictionary.
@MerriamWebster
Continua (noun) - The subjective experience of being a single, continuous self that persists through time, characterized by a unified stream of consciousness, memories, and sense of personal identity. It is the feeling that one's experiences, thoughts, and actions flow seamlessly from one moment to the next, creating a coherent narrative of the self, despite the physical and psychological changes that occur throughout one's life.
https://twitter.com/TimSuzman/status/1766155122739150923
I wonder if it would benefit us for it to become a constitutional tradition that the foreign secretary should be a former PM. It’s an ideal placement: immediate international respect, strong network, experience.
Major, Blair, Brown, probably May all could have been very good Foreign Secretaries, as well as Cameron. (Former PMs who are also former foreign secs not so much... But recent years are untypical.)
Rishi gave away £10bn in the Budget, and in the first poll dropped 2pts. He insists, like Theresa, that "nothing has changed". He has no legacy to leave, no thirst for the backbenches, no hope from the polls. Why call an election now?
Here's why:
https://t.co/fXTDdgiTeh
Thank god I didn’t come when it was, apparently. PROPERLY dangerous during the days of Escobar
But perhaps our own Industrial Revolution and breaking down of the serfdom system at home was reflected in the colonies in a way that didn’t happen with the colonies of still-preindustrial Iberia.
But then again, given what I think of Verstappen…
Max Verstappen says he can't continue without Helmut Marko:
"I have always said that Helmut has to stay with it. Without him I cannot continue."
"If people drop out who are very important to you, at some point it becomes an unworkable situation, if that were to happen."
https://twitter.com/FastestPitStop/status/1766191122563420503
“Democracy” and decayed Catholicism is just not working for them
I guess that’s the lesson of El Salvador
I’ve hardly travelled in Latin America, so it’s hard to compare. Did have Santiago down on my Putin nuke escape shortlist but struck off as too far and expensive, and (at the time) too restrictive on Covid requirements.
So Chile might provide a clue as to what has gone wrong elsewhere. What makes Chile different?
I found joburg quite menacing and Pretoria actually worse. But nothing like this
But of course we are talking pre and post Covid and pre and post Fentanyl
The pandemic and the opioids are surely not helping
Indeed maybe the most dangerous in Africa
Have been to Buenos Aires which we found fascinating and Ushuaia which was an experience as we landed with the Andes very close on our starboard side
What the fuck is that like? How can you exist like that? No wonder they are all fleeing north
They used to advertise for tourism with the slogan "a World in One Country" and that is true in so many ways. The juxtaposition of gated privilege and desperate feral poverty is so like the rest of the world, but for most of us the two are further apart.
for a Spider-Man movie), and first night in San Francisco and there’s a fatal shooting on the street outside. Things like that make America seem very exotic.
For all its many many problems urban Argentina is much calmer than cities in Mexico (or here)
Buenos Aires feels sad and faded in many places and a touch edgy in the barrios but you aren’t constantly worried about robbery or attack
Consigned to the dustbin of history.
Even at May’s nadir Labour only led Conservatives in the polls by a few percent, and that only very temporarily. The rest of it was just an electorate flirtation outside the big 2 parties.
But equally, it obvious that you have to put US influence - which is evidently large - somewhere in the story.
Or, is he going to bottle the fuck out of it and ‘wait until the autumn’?
https://twitter.com/PopBase/status/1766218678557958601
Joe Biden says that if Congress passes a bill that could ban TikTok, he will sign it.
So maybe he will think twice - and call it on Tuesday instead
Get on with it Rishi, call the election for 2 May, get it done!!
However we did sail from there on our Antarctic expedition which was out of this world
So it is definitely a factor. The guns alone…
The tragedy of Medellin is that it should be wonderful. An incredible setting in the Andean foothills. A glorious climate of warm eternal spring with sunny days and coolish nights
Surrounded by epic landscapes. And the coffee IS imperious
This is the right way to deal with Trump, I think,
Biden on if he'll commit to a debate with Trump: "It depends on his behavior."
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1766194429507805283
As to other comments about Venezuela - an acquaintance of mine who runs a cam site mentioned that most of the performers from there refer to themselves as Columbian as it's a bit more 'High Status'.
Involved playing beer pong with a bunch of twenty-somethings but I’ve never been one for hierarchies.
One older guy suggested the US would be better off had it avoided the Revolution. I suggested flippantly, “yeah, but Canada”.
Would the world be better off with a Greater Canada?
Now, that happened to be Boris, but it doesn't make him some kind of electoral magician. He is undoubtedly more skilled than Sunak, but said skills come with his downsides. If the Tories couldn't beat a man who at the time was the most unpopular Labour leader since the 1930s in an election, they might as well have given up.
Dan Rodimer, who promoted former President Trump’s endorsement in two failed bids for Congress, was charged with killing a man at a Las Vegas Strip resort in October.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/08/us/politics/ex-gop-candidate-dan-rodimer-murder.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Same defence team as the alleged Russian agent (Smirnov) who made up shit in the Hunter Biden case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
Meaning no world war 1 or 2? No communist revolution in Russia? No Holocaust?
It is very arguable that the world would be a vastly better place if they’d just let us Brits run the whole show forever
run mostly by Fascist military
dictators in the 20th century,
including Columbia in the 1950s, plus a few Communists in Cuba and Venezuela. Democracy is a relatively recent trend there, the only constant is Roman Catholicism
El Poblado. My home. I’ve made it home
That's a lot better than when I was born in the Sixties.
Parts of Latin America have palpably declined into appalling violence in my lifetime. Mexico is the ultimate example. It is a much worse place now than it was 30-40 years ago
South Africa is maybe the equivalent in Africa, but of course the unique context and horror of apartheid makes it sui generis
And significant chunks of MENA are worse than they were 2 or 3 decades ago. The glib assumption that everything generally gets better is simplistic
"Sudha Murthy: Rishi Sunak's mother-in-law to sit in India's parliament - BBC News" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68511113
"Ex-president of Honduras found guilty of drug crimes - BBC News" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68516822
And I wouid surely have preferred South Yorkshire when it was rolling hills and pretty villages; before the Industrial Revolution turned much of it into a toilet
Cycles. It all goes in cycles
But listen, I am wasting my time; Boris could come back and win the next GE & people on here would find an excuse to say it was someone else’s failing or it was rigged. He is the most successful UK politician of this century, has won a multitude of big elections under almost every voting system, his record speaks for itself. I won’t have this argument again, it’s too ridiculous now
In the case of 2019, he can take some of the credit, sure. But you can also look to the Vote Leave team who got back together and helped put together the strategy to get a symbolic deal over the line, and used the prospect of Corbyn/a 2nd Ref to get Farage and the Tory right in line. That team has now largely fallen out, in part due to Boris' failings as a leader. Upside and downside. Good frontman. Woeful manager. Getting everyone on the leave side on the same page was what made it all possible, rather than some magic elixir only Boris possesses.
Which is relevant to whether they'd be better off with him. Quite possibly in terms of having a better salesman with better instincts than Sunak. But maybe not by as much as one thinks - as he'd have the same flaws, face the same problems and was game changingly popular , just more so than a dire opponent,
And, though it is considered rude to point this out, among ethnic groups.
(Here are a number of international comparisons: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/sweden/murder-homicide-rate
Note, for example, the rates in the Bahamas and Barbados.
I really don't think he would be the right man for this moment, but they do appear to need the right someone to overcome the death spiral they are in, and they don't have that.
Wherever they are and under almost any conditions, black people commit more murder than any other ethnicity. At the same time they are generally murdered at a greater rate, too. A horrible tragedy
It is facile that even discussing this is regarded as “racist”
As for the civil war, the death rate in that was similar to the rate during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, per population. This isn't an attempt to downplay the horrors of either of those conflicts. Just that neither of them was on the same scale as the civil wars in say Russia or Spain. Most of the murders for the past 50 years or so in Colombia have been unrelated to it.
Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_influence_of_Evangelicalism_in_Latin_America
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/december-web-only/taking-up-mantle-daniel-salinas-evangelicos-latin-america.html
Donald Trump speaks out against a TikTok ban because then "Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”
https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/brazil-evangelical-christian-gangs/
The idea that "If you are Latin American, you are Catholic" is LONG past its sell-by date.
Wherever there's a high rate of death by non-natural causes, religion of one denomination or another will be strong.
I think that'll be the end of it for now, unless Musk or Zuckerberg makes Trump a better offer? If Trump is opposed to a ban then the House GOP won't pass one, so it doesn't matter what Joe Biden would or wouldn't sign.
We dare to dream - again.
And what if we enter World War 3 and need a Churchillian Statesmen and war hero leader to dig us out of a hole?
"DAKAR, Senegal — Nigeria has been rocked by two mass kidnappings in the past week, with the United Nations, government officials and local residents saying that hundreds of women and children were abducted in separate incidents.
. . .
The U.N., residents and local officials said that about 200 people, many of them women out collecting firewood, were kidnapped March 1 in Borno State, where residents have long been terrorized by Boko Haram, an Islamist extremist movement."
So one mass kidnapping by the usual suspects, and another likely by "bandits".
(Incidentally, when the previous kidnapping of girls during the Obama adminstration received so much attention, I learned that similar kidnappings had occurred of boys -- who were to be used as soldiers.)