Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
I agree.
The Google pixel photo and software allows you to make all kinds of edits like replacing one person's face with a different photo from the same selection (e.g. better smile, eyes open), deleting unwanted objects, or blurring the background. All at a click of a button with no skill needed.
I assume it's pretty trivial to take this a step further in proper editing software.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Well, we could look at productivity. And invest, steadily, in quiet fashion, over decades, in slowly improving processes and equipment.
Oh, you.
:: pinches your cheek and gives your hair a ruffle ::
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
Maybe I am becoming thick in my old age but why is it a seemingly massive deal that Princess Katherine edited a photo? Its the main headline on the BBC not just the Express . Anyone else find this a bit unnerving that they are losing their finger on the pulse
From what I read, the problem with the photo wasn’t the BBC not having their finger on the pulse; the problem was Princess Charlotte having her finger on the pulse, her finger on the chair, her finger on the ceiling and her finger outside the window.
I must be old fashioned. All this fuss is no way to discuss a perfectly OK photo of three children, who appear absolutely delightful and who didn't ask for all this and whose mum has not been well.
The problem is that if you're a public figure - particularly a royal or politician given they have ostensibly important public roles - you really should not be sending out edited images as handouts to news and photo agencies. They have rules about these things for good reason, namely that if they accept them it totally undermines their position as having verified images and information.
So that was unbelievably daft - prompting the 'KILL NOTICE' last night. Which was a pretty big deal. And has then understandably prompted a feeding frenzy given there was already a lot of speculation that the Palace have been behaving in a pretty odd way about her recovery from surgery.
Amateur hour in the way they've handled it. Which doesn't bode well, given media management is a big part of the royal job description.
Unfortunate. Why did they have no system of checks ?
"Colorado’s star DNA scientist intentionally manipulated evidence for years, calling into question all of the criminal cases she worked on." She "omitted material facts in records, tampered with DNA testing results, and violated a variety of lab policies." https://twitter.com/AjitPai/status/1767241479481696436
This has happened before, in the US. It does make me wonder what has happened here.
{Dr Freddy Patel has entered the chat and delivered a report saying that that the guy with the bullet holes died of natural causes}
Reminds me of the first (I think) episode of 'Murder Most Horrid' where someone was found naked & hanging by the neck from a railway bridge with a slogan painted across their chest, and the local pathologist marked the cause of death as 'A bad case of the sniffles'.
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
The Conservative party’s biggest donor told colleagues that looking at Diane Abbott makes you “want to hate all black women” and said the MP “should be shot”, the Guardian can reveal.
Frank Hester, who has given £10m to the Tories in the past year, said in the meeting that he did not hate all black women. But he also said that seeing Abbott, who is Britain’s longest-serving black MP, on TV meant “you just want to hate all black women because she’s there”.
He also called all his “foreign” workers together to defend himself against online claims that he had made racist remarks. During this meeting he said he abhorred racism and told his team their progress would not be “based on the colour of your skin, your ethnicity, where your parents are from”. However, he also said “we take the piss out of the fact that all our Chinese girls sit together in Asian corner”.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
Reform have the advantage that, for the foreseeable future, they don't need workable answers, because they won't be required to enact them.
Yep - they can follow the Leave approach of creating a blank canvas where everyone can project their ideal Government while promising everyone everything they want because it's not likely to happen.
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
I was fascinated by Lee Anderson's comment in his defection (or similar) speech this morning:
"I want my country back".
What was his country? When did it exist? Could he describe it to me or will it end up a romanticised idyll like John Major's notions of the local vicar cycling to the village church on a Sunday morning?
In any case, where does he get off demanding I live in the same country as him? I might not want to - my country is probably very different to his (it may not be). The truth is societies and countries are constantly evolving and changing - as the song has it "don't look back, you can never look back".
Bog standard reactionary politics, which has always been the preserve of ageing men who think life was better in their youth.
Which it probably was in many ways, irrespective of politics and society. "I want my country back" is really "I want my hair and potency back", however you want to interpret that one.
Can we stop talking about Leon for even an hour? Sheesh...
I was fascinated by Lee Anderson's comment in his defection (or similar) speech this morning:
"I want my country back".
What was his country? When did it exist? Could he describe it to me or will it end up a romanticised idyll like John Major's notions of the local vicar cycling to the village church on a Sunday morning?
In any case, where does he get off demanding I live in the same country as him? I might not want to - my country is probably very different to his (it may not be). The truth is societies and countries are constantly evolving and changing - as the song has it "don't look back, you can never look back".
A good riff on the theme from a sadly departed voice.
Unfortunate. Why did they have no system of checks ?
"Colorado’s star DNA scientist intentionally manipulated evidence for years, calling into question all of the criminal cases she worked on." She "omitted material facts in records, tampered with DNA testing results, and violated a variety of lab policies." https://twitter.com/AjitPai/status/1767241479481696436
This has happened before, in the US. It does make me wonder what has happened here.
{Dr Freddy Patel has entered the chat and delivered a report saying that that the guy with the bullet holes died of natural causes}
Reminds me of the first (I think) episode of 'Murder Most Horrid' where someone was found naked & hanging by the neck from a railway bridge with a slogan painted across their chest, and the local pathologist marked the cause of death as 'A bad case of the sniffles'.
Wasn’t that inspired by the finding that the Italian banker who’d stolen money from (among other) both the Mafia and the ‘Ndrangheta had committed suicide? The one they found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London?
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
BREAKING: Keir Starmer has called for transgender women to be BANNED from women's sport.
He told the Telegraph that Labour is "supportive" of sports governing bodies that have banned trans women from participating, calling the bans "common sense".
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
I agree.
The Google pixel photo and software allows you to make all kinds of edits like replacing one person's face with a different photo from the same selection (e.g. better smile, eyes open), deleting unwanted objects, or blurring the background. All at a click of a button with no skill needed.
I assume it's pretty trivial to take this a step further in proper editing software.
Twas ever this
Consider this photo
The Valley Of Death the Light Brigade charged into. Or is it? Or has the scene been improved? People are still arguing.
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
I agree.
The Google pixel photo and software allows you to make all kinds of edits like replacing one person's face with a different photo from the same selection (e.g. better smile, eyes open), deleting unwanted objects, or blurring the background. All at a click of a button with no skill needed.
I assume it's pretty trivial to take this a step further in proper editing software.
Twas ever this
Consider this photo
The Valley Of Death the Light Brigade charged into. Or is it? Or has the scene been improved? People are still arguing.
The photo doesn't appear. So the answer to all your questions is 'no.'
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
I’ve been a fan of sorting out our housing shortage for a while, but I’m starting to wonder if people aren’t putting too much store in housing as a solution for everything.
Britain is struggling with quasi-stagnation since 2008 but so are most other developed countries, the one standout being the USA which happens to have become the world’s largest oil producer, has been gorging on cheap fracked gas for years, has better demographics than almost any of its peers and has market economies of scale that are pretty hard to emulate even across the EU.
Some of our peers have constrained housing stock but many (most) have far less of a supply shortage and much more affordable homes. That hasn’t stopped them stagnating though. Take Italy. Probably the biggest oversupply of houses on the continent but the epitome of long term economic stagnation. And some of the most successful have pretty expensive housing. Our businesses don’t invest enough, but that’s not because they’re paying off mortgages on houses.
So I think building more will help in a lot of ways but we’ll need more reform than just that.
Unfortunate. Why did they have no system of checks ?
"Colorado’s star DNA scientist intentionally manipulated evidence for years, calling into question all of the criminal cases she worked on." She "omitted material facts in records, tampered with DNA testing results, and violated a variety of lab policies." https://twitter.com/AjitPai/status/1767241479481696436
This has happened before, in the US. It does make me wonder what has happened here.
{Dr Freddy Patel has entered the chat and delivered a report saying that that the guy with the bullet holes died of natural causes}
Reminds me of the first (I think) episode of 'Murder Most Horrid' where someone was found naked & hanging by the neck from a railway bridge with a slogan painted across their chest, and the local pathologist marked the cause of death as 'A bad case of the sniffles'.
Wasn’t that inspired by the finding that the Italian banker who’d stolen money from (among other) both the Mafia and the ‘Ndrangheta had committed suicide? The one they found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London?
Quite possibly. It was written by Ian Hislop as I remember.
Might as well have killed himself then climbed into a sportsbag and zipped it shut. Much warmer, if nothing else.
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
That's rather for Kate to explain, given that she's supposedly the one responsible for the faked photo.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
Sir Keir Starmer backs ban on transgender athletes in female competition - Labour leader says he supports governing bodies’ actions to ban transgender women having previously refused to take a position on the issue
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
Sir Keir Starmer backs ban on transgender athletes in female competition - Labour leader says he supports governing bodies’ actions to ban transgender women having previously refused to take a position on the issue
Sir Keir Starmer backs ban on transgender athletes in female competition - Labour leader says he supports governing bodies’ actions to ban transgender women having previously refused to take a position on the issue
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
I’ve been a fan of sorting out our housing shortage for a while, but I’m starting to wonder if people aren’t putting too much store in housing as a solution for everything.
Britain is struggling with quasi-stagnation since 2008 but so are most other developed countries, the one standout being the USA which happens to have become the world’s largest oil producer, has been gorging on cheap fracked gas for years, has better demographics than almost any of its peers and has market economies of scale that are pretty hard to emulate even across the EU.
Some of our peers have constrained housing stock but many (most) have far less of a supply shortage and much more affordable homes. That hasn’t stopped them stagnating though. Take Italy. Probably the biggest oversupply of houses on the continent but the epitome of long term economic stagnation. And some of the most successful have pretty expensive housing. Our businesses don’t invest enough, but that’s not because they’re paying off mortgages on houses.
So I think building more will help in a lot of ways but we’ll need more reform than just that.
If people aren’t shovelling all their disposable income into housing, then they might be able to afford other things.
Cheaper housing would reduce pressure on wage inflation. Which would slow down inflation on everything else.
Cheaper housing would massively reduce the welfare bill.
Housing not being a one way punt to double digit returns would force people to invest in other things.
Yes, cheaper housing is not a cure for everything. But it would be quite helpful.
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
That's rather for Kate to explain, given that she's supposedly the one responsible for the faked photo.
You are aware that nearly every photo printed in the tabloids is retouched? Some is completely rebuilt to the point of being a virtual cartoon.
Even the broadsheets retouch the important photos.
It has always been thus. It’s a bit funny that they get sniffy if someone else does it.
Sir Keir Starmer backs ban on transgender athletes in female competition - Labour leader says he supports governing bodies’ actions to ban transgender women having previously refused to take a position on the issue
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
I’ve been a fan of sorting out our housing shortage for a while, but I’m starting to wonder if people aren’t putting too much store in housing as a solution for everything.
Britain is struggling with quasi-stagnation since 2008 but so are most other developed countries, the one standout being the USA which happens to have become the world’s largest oil producer, has been gorging on cheap fracked gas for years, has better demographics than almost any of its peers and has market economies of scale that are pretty hard to emulate even across the EU.
Some of our peers have constrained housing stock but many (most) have far less of a supply shortage and much more affordable homes. That hasn’t stopped them stagnating though. Take Italy. Probably the biggest oversupply of houses on the continent but the epitome of long term economic stagnation. And some of the most successful have pretty expensive housing. Our businesses don’t invest enough, but that’s not because they’re paying off mortgages on houses.
So I think building more will help in a lot of ways but we’ll need more reform than just that.
If people aren’t shovelling all their disposable income into housing, then they might be able to afford other things.
Cheaper housing would reduce pressure on wage inflation. Which would slow down inflation on everything else.
Cheaper housing would massively reduce the welfare bill.
Housing not being a one way punt to double digit returns would force people to invest in other things.
Yes, cheaper housing is not a cure for everything. But it would be quite helpful.
Yes I entirely agree, but that last sentence is important. Other stuff is needed too.
The asset sweating mentality of British industry is a big issue, as is the financialised approach to building a business: get it to a certain scale then exit, rather than keep going.
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
I agree.
The Google pixel photo and software allows you to make all kinds of edits like replacing one person's face with a different photo from the same selection (e.g. better smile, eyes open), deleting unwanted objects, or blurring the background. All at a click of a button with no skill needed.
I assume it's pretty trivial to take this a step further in proper editing software.
People used to have to work so hard to remove people purged by the Great Leader fow, it's now trivially easy, takes all the art out of it.
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
That's rather for Kate to explain, given that she's supposedly the one responsible for the faked photo.
You are aware that nearly every photo printed in the tabloids is retouched? Some is completely rebuilt to the point of being a virtual cartoon.
Even the broadsheets retouch the important photos.
It has always been thus. It’s a bit funny that they get sniffy if someone else does it.
Plenty to chew over in the past 24 hours or so but I'll start with Portugal which produced a surprising result.
The surprise wasn't the fall of the Socialists but the mediocre performance of the Social Democrats and the strong polling by Chega (doing a bit better than VOX in Spain).
With the four overseas seats to be declared, the Democratic Alliance, led by Montenegro's Social Democrats, leads the Socialists 79-77 (needing the three Madeira seats to get them over the line). Chega went from 7% to 18% and gained 36 seats (the Socialists lost 43 and the Democratic Alliance gained just two).
Not much change among the minor parties with the Greens gaining three and the Communists losing two.
Interesting to see the Algarve or Faro District, was the only one won by Chega (albeit narrowly).
Chega's 48 seats mean they can form a majority with either the Democratic Alliance or the Socialists but both the two major party blocs have refused to go into coalition with Ventura and his party.
I suspect Montenegro will be invited to form a Government - he might be able to cut a deal with Liberal Initiative to get their eight seats but basically without Chega the only majority coalition would be a "grand" coalition of Socialists and Democratic Alliance and that won't happen.
I thought the Socialists were quick overnight to hand the mess over to Montenegro - could be a shrewd move.
It's not widely known, but the Portuguese economy was already on its knees before the financial crisis: they had a big bust in, IIRC 2001, related to the dot com boom. So it's more than 20 years of pain now.
Many portuguese have moved - often to France and the UK. At the same time, city property prices have gone nuts. In Lisbon now, a one bed flat can cost more in rent than an entire minimum wage income.
A strangely forgotten country, Portugal, outside of tourism.
It has a population of 10 million and GDP of 376 billion. That’s very similar on both metrics to Hungary or Czechia, and similar population to Sweden (though poorer). Much more people than Austria, Serbia, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Finland, all of the Baltics combined, Bulgaria
It has former colonies and people speaking its language on 3 continents, and strategically positioned oceanic islands in the Atlantic… yet is geopolitically invisible.
It’s always been peripheral - literally
It was the accidentally enormous empire which changed that for a while
It’s remarkable it survives at all. Several times it has nearly been absorbed into Spain
And since Portugal shipped more African slaves to the Americas than Britain, it must pay even more than the UK in reparations.
Brazil was a massively bigger importer of slaves than the US.
Kept it going much later than the US too. One of the last major countries, if not the last, to abolish it.
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
This gets to the point doesn't it, what is it that Anderson and mates are saying. "I want my country back" isn't saying that you don't like current policies for the future, it means you don't accept the past, which is of course the past which results in the ethnicity, background and religion of millions of current UK citizens.
It is very noticeable that this aspect of the extreme does not set out the stall explicitly, but it is important to recognise that it is the present and the past, and its consequences now, they don't accept, not just future policy.
When non-acceptance of the present makeup of the UK is turned from rhetoric to policy, then we are in trouble.
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
That's rather for Kate to explain, given that she's supposedly the one responsible for the faked photo.
You are aware that nearly every photo printed in the tabloids is retouched? Some is completely rebuilt to the point of being a virtual cartoon.
Even the broadsheets retouch the important photos.
It has always been thus. It’s a bit funny that they get sniffy if someone else does it.
Sir Keir Starmer backs ban on transgender athletes in female competition - Labour leader says he supports governing bodies’ actions to ban transgender women having previously refused to take a position on the issue
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
That's rather for Kate to explain, given that she's supposedly the one responsible for the faked photo.
You are aware that nearly every photo printed in the tabloids is retouched? Some is completely rebuilt to the point of being a virtual cartoon.
Even the broadsheets retouch the important photos.
It has always been thus. It’s a bit funny that they get sniffy if someone else does it.
And when all is said and done this was a family photo for the national album, because they are royals (and those children didn't ask for it). It's not as if the alteration was a photo of the shooting, the smoking gun, the murder victim or the bank robbery. A sense of proportion has been lost.
A surname that, unfortunately, I can never take seriously since learning as a small boy that Gerald Durrell had a chimp called Cholmondeley St John, and having my mother explain the pronunciation.
It's silly, but not as silly as Featherstonehaugh.
Talliaferro. Menzies.
If Menz-zeez want it pronounced Ming-geez they should spell it that way.
On the contrary, it was the southron who misunderstood the yogh as a Z. Vide Hjaltland becoming Shetland via Zetland.
They used to have a monopoly in newspaper distribution, even as far as Zetland. If the Daily Beast failed to arrive in Norwick for breakfast Menzies would get the blame, but they rarely got any praise when it did. Needless to say it was mispronounced all the way back to Fleet Street.
Haw! Been there, to Norwick and Lamba Ness in the pre-spaceport era ... we were staying in a croft near Haroldswick, in the simmer dim,. and the sheep would insist on baaing loudly all night or rather day.
Princess of wales seen in car with her husband, as he goes to westminster abbey. She’s just gone for the drive apparently. So she’s not dead!
So why the f**k can't she arrange an independent, unedited photo!
I'm just curious about one detail. Is it even possible to get your fingers into the position of those of Louis's right hand without using your left hand to force them there?
Just how bad are the Royal Family's PR team that they thought releasing this photo was a good idea? And then to release a statement saying Kate likes to do photoshop in her spare time?
🤦♀️
The government should be stepping in as Blair did when they totally misread the mood after Diana's death. But Sunak does not have the authority and probably would not know what to do even if he had it.
FWIW she’s said in the past that she edits photos. The press release was just repeating the truth.
Define edit.
Your phone auto edits. The raw image from the sensors is quite often unusable. The image you get when you press the button is already a rework.
Red eye?
Then you change the contrast. That’s editing and will set off editing detection.
The you use an automask to make the dark shaded area lighter without changing the rest.
Then you use multiple shots taken a fraction of a second apart to create one better image
Etc
At what point is The Truth lost?
That's rather for Kate to explain, given that she's supposedly the one responsible for the faked photo.
You are aware that nearly every photo printed in the tabloids is retouched? Some is completely rebuilt to the point of being a virtual cartoon.
Even the broadsheets retouch the important photos.
It has always been thus. It’s a bit funny that they get sniffy if someone else does it.
This is a bit more than retouching an odd blemish. The photo is heavily reworked.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
This will require two things of Labour, should it win the next election outright and have a free hand:
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.) 2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
I think it's unlikely that Lee Anderson is advocating repatriation of immigrants. He might be racist (I'm not in his head) but 'I want my country back' is a very generalist and meaningless statement - just that you felt more aligned to the country at some point in the past. Many remainers have said they want their country back.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
This will require two things of Labour, should it win the next election outright and have a free hand:
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.) 2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
Yes, I'm not saying its likely but its absolutely possible.
If Starmer does the right thing, it'll be brave, but he'll be doing the right thing for the country and possibly one of the all-time greatest and most significant PMs as a result.
Or he could just be a lickspittle who gets into Downing St but doesn't actually want to help the country once there and is instead just concerned about getting re-elected.
The choice is his. I expect the latter, but hope for the former. Not holding my breath though.
BREAKING: Keir Starmer has called for transgender women to be BANNED from women's sport.
He told the Telegraph that Labour is "supportive" of sports governing bodies that have banned trans women from participating, calling the bans "common sense".
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
This will require two things of Labour, should it win the next election outright and have a free hand:
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.) 2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
The forthcoming Labour Government is going to have to raise tax revenue from somewhere and there is little extra that can be raised from income taxes so all that is left is taxing assets.
And given that Council tax is now in desperate need of reform - changing council tax to an simply x% of market value tax would solve an awful lot of problems rather quickly
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
I’ve been a fan of sorting out our housing shortage for a while, but I’m starting to wonder if people aren’t putting too much store in housing as a solution for everything.
Britain is struggling with quasi-stagnation since 2008 but so are most other developed countries, the one standout being the USA which happens to have become the world’s largest oil producer, has been gorging on cheap fracked gas for years, has better demographics than almost any of its peers and has market economies of scale that are pretty hard to emulate even across the EU.
Some of our peers have constrained housing stock but many (most) have far less of a supply shortage and much more affordable homes. That hasn’t stopped them stagnating though. Take Italy. Probably the biggest oversupply of houses on the continent but the epitome of long term economic stagnation. And some of the most successful have pretty expensive housing. Our businesses don’t invest enough, but that’s not because they’re paying off mortgages on houses.
So I think building more will help in a lot of ways but we’ll need more reform than just that.
If people aren’t shovelling all their disposable income into housing, then they might be able to afford other things.
Cheaper housing would reduce pressure on wage inflation. Which would slow down inflation on everything else.
Cheaper housing would massively reduce the welfare bill.
Housing not being a one way punt to double digit returns would force people to invest in other things.
Yes, cheaper housing is not a cure for everything. But it would be quite helpful.
Yes I entirely agree, but that last sentence is important. Other stuff is needed too.
The asset sweating mentality of British industry is a big issue, as is the financialised approach to building a business: get it to a certain scale then exit, rather than keep going.
I rather enjoyed setting off “an expert” on the space launch industry.
He was trying to advise investors to buy into launch companies with a view to moving the manufacturing to… China. Including buying into US companies.
For those who don’t know ITAR (which bans this) is one law that everyone in US politics from AOC to Donald Trump agree on.
So apart from his moronic advice to try and do a chop job on technology companies, he was trying to get everyone involved life at Club Fed.
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Until they were defeated by democratic powers.
But you don't want Russia defeated.
Spain was a fascist dictatorship and that ended in 1975 with the dictator dying peacefully in bed, which you might have realised if you engaged what passes for a brain before posting rather than just stringing together a series of hackneyed cliches.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
This will require two things of Labour, should it win the next election outright and have a free hand:
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.) 2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
Yes, I'm not saying its likely but its absolutely possible.
If Starmer does the right thing, it'll be brave, but he'll be doing the right thing for the country and possibly one of the all-time greatest and most significant PMs as a result.
Or he could just be a lickspittle who gets into Downing St but doesn't actually want to help the country once there and is instead just concerned about getting re-elected.
The choice is his. I expect the latter, but hope for the former. Not holding my breath though.
Not a lickspittle, I think. More that he will consider following the advice of permanent officials part of good government.
It is highly unlikely that, given his background, he will be generating the kind of memos sent between officials under Thatcher. There are some excoriating her obsession with “the ozone layer nonsense” that are comedy gold. Sir Jasper Quigley all the way….
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Until they were defeated by democratic powers.
But you don't want Russia defeated.
Spain was a fascist dictatorship and that ended in 1975 with the dictator dying peacefully in bed, which you might have realised if you engaged what passes for a brain before posting rather than just stringing together a series of hackneyed cliches.
Franco was more a reactionary strongman in the South American style than a fascist - though he certain allied to and used the Spanish Fascist movement.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
Yes I think this Labour's biggest challenge but also their biggest opportunity to shift the dial on growth, given that they have ruled out most of the other options.
The local planning regime is sclerotic, time consuming, and dominated by local councillors whose main interest is supporting NIMBYs in their wards (even though I have actually never heard anyone blame the loss of a seat, still less a Council, on a planning decision - the NIMBYs are invariably small groups who shout very loudly).
Labour should lay down national residential building standards. including minimum room sizes. a maximum numbers of habitable rooms per acre, ratios of outside space to the number of residential units, perhaps height restrictions, which could be related to other buildings in the area, and they should pass legislation saying that any development which meets the standards will automatically proceed, the only role of the local council will be to confirm that the standards are met and monitor the development to ensure that it is built in accordance with the plans.
They should also stop the absurd proliferation of conservation areas - I'd get rid of the lot and replace them with a wider listing regime - I can see, for example, that you might want to preserve streets such as those that border Clapham Common, which I happen to know, but there is absolutely no reason to extend conservation areas to several streets away which cannot be seen from the Common. If buildings are genuinely worthy of preservation they should be listed, if not they should be available for development.
When it comes to new development in greeenfield areas (which should continue to be carefully considered) land should be compulsorily purchased at its agricultural value and the planning gain should accrue to the state since it is, after all, the state that creates the gain by zoning the land for development. This is not a particularly radical idea - it was used to build many postwar developments including Milton Keynes
Sir Keir Starmer backs ban on transgender athletes in female competition - Labour leader says he supports governing bodies’ actions to ban transgender women having previously refused to take a position on the issue
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Until they were defeated by democratic powers.
But you don't want Russia defeated.
Spain was a fascist dictatorship and that ended in 1975 with the dictator dying peacefully in bed, which you might have realised if you engaged what passes for a brain before posting rather than just stringing together a series of hackneyed cliches.
Franco was more a reactionary strongman in the South American style than a fascist - though he certain allied to and used the Spanish Fascist movement.
His political sympathies are immaterial, 'despotism' was the operative term.
FPT: As it happens, I have just finished reading William Rosen's "Justinian's Flea" -- and so was reminded of this bit when I read CycleFree's header on Ireland: "And, pompous or not, it is impossible to read the language of Trebonian and his colleagues without being impressed with the frequency with which the compositions that form the Codex refer to liberty as an ideal. Or the regularity with which equality (among Christians, anyway) is invoked as a way to eliminate dozens of forms of discrimination--between manumitted slaves and freemen, for example, or between men and women. Before the publication of the Institutes, Roman women were severely restricted in owning property, were prohibited from inheriting. and were subject to lifetime guardianship. Either because of the imposing example of Theodora, or out of a core belief in equality, the Codex proved to be one of the largest leaps ever in the liberation of women." (pp. 126-127)
Emperor Justinian, women's libber. That was a surprise, to me at least.
(Justinian's code, as we now often describe this work, did keep divorce, despite the opposition of many church leaders, because banning it would "increase the potential for poisonings".)
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
This will require two things of Labour, should it win the next election outright and have a free hand:
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.) 2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
The forthcoming Labour Government is going to have to raise tax revenue from somewhere and there is little extra that can be raised from income taxes so all that is left is taxing assets.
And given that Council tax is now in desperate need of reform - changing council tax to an simply x% of market value tax would solve an awful lot of problems rather quickly
Such a change would have just about everyone rioting.
Imagine all the tenants, Paying rent until the pips squeak. Then council tax jumps. Are they going to blame the landlord, or the government?
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Until they were defeated by democratic powers.
But you don't want Russia defeated.
Spain was a fascist dictatorship and that ended in 1975 with the dictator dying peacefully in bed, which you might have realised if you engaged what passes for a brain before posting rather than just stringing together a series of hackneyed cliches.
So what ? They’re a democracy now.
If you’re going to snark about engaging your brain, you might consider why we think your assessments of Russian actions are a little haywire ?
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
We don't all know him as well as you do. Or at least we aren't all so capable of reading minds.
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Until they were defeated by democratic powers.
But you don't want Russia defeated.
Spain was a fascist dictatorship and that ended in 1975 with the dictator dying peacefully in bed, which you might have realised if you engaged what passes for a brain before posting rather than just stringing together a series of hackneyed cliches.
Franco was more a reactionary strongman in the South American style than a fascist - though he certain allied to and used the Spanish Fascist movement.
His political sympathies are immaterial, 'despotism' was the operative term.
Yes - but the end of his regime, sliding into full democracy, is more like the end of the caudillos than the Italian slap head (petrol station decoration) or the Austrian Street Artist (self improvement via PPK)
Sir Keir Starmer backs ban on transgender athletes in female competition - Labour leader says he supports governing bodies’ actions to ban transgender women having previously refused to take a position on the issue
Unfortunate. Why did they have no system of checks ?
"Colorado’s star DNA scientist intentionally manipulated evidence for years, calling into question all of the criminal cases she worked on." She "omitted material facts in records, tampered with DNA testing results, and violated a variety of lab policies." https://twitter.com/AjitPai/status/1767241479481696436
This has happened before, in the US. It does make me wonder what has happened here.
{Dr Freddy Patel has entered the chat and delivered a report saying that that the guy with the bullet holes died of natural causes}
Reminds me of the first (I think) episode of 'Murder Most Horrid' where someone was found naked & hanging by the neck from a railway bridge with a slogan painted across their chest, and the local pathologist marked the cause of death as 'A bad case of the sniffles'.
Wasn’t that inspired by the finding that the Italian banker who’d stolen money from (among other) both the Mafia and the ‘Ndrangheta had committed suicide? The one they found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London?
Unfortunate. Why did they have no system of checks ?
"Colorado’s star DNA scientist intentionally manipulated evidence for years, calling into question all of the criminal cases she worked on." She "omitted material facts in records, tampered with DNA testing results, and violated a variety of lab policies." https://twitter.com/AjitPai/status/1767241479481696436
This has happened before, in the US. It does make me wonder what has happened here.
{Dr Freddy Patel has entered the chat and delivered a report saying that that the guy with the bullet holes died of natural causes}
Reminds me of the first (I think) episode of 'Murder Most Horrid' where someone was found naked & hanging by the neck from a railway bridge with a slogan painted across their chest, and the local pathologist marked the cause of death as 'A bad case of the sniffles'.
Wasn’t that inspired by the finding that the Italian banker who’d stolen money from (among other) both the Mafia and the ‘Ndrangheta had committed suicide? The one they found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London?
Roberto Calvi
Ah yes, that’s the Strange Fruit I was thinking of.
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
I think it's unlikely that Lee Anderson is advocating repatriation of immigrants. He might be racist (I'm not in his head) but 'I want my country back' is a very generalist and meaningless statement - just that you felt more aligned to the country at some point in the past. Many remainers have said they want their country back.
Where does anyone who says 'I want my country back' think it's gone?
Note that it doesn't say he wouldn't give them weapons. Trump favours using lend-lease to finance it.
You seriously think Trump will even go that far. Putin will be celebrating if Trump is elected . There is no middle ground here , you either support Trump or Ukraine . You can’t do both .
I think it's very unlikely that Trump will continue the current policy of giving Ukraine just enough support to keep the war smouldering - he will change the policy. He'll want to be seen to have 'sorted it out', rather than continuing the conflict because a continuation is perceived to be in the USA's geostrategic interests.
I do think it's possible that his re-election could be a net good for Ukraine though, because he's an unknown quantity in the negotiations. Ukraine faces a real issue in negotiating any kind of peace with Russia because Russia has the upper hand and Biden can't really threaten to give Ukraine anything that menaces the Russians if they don't co-operate, because politically he's prevented from doing so. Trump can make those sorts of threats, and perhaps be believed, because much as I do think he admires Putin, he could also turn on him easily - this is Trump; he doesn't do loyalty.
I don't 'want' Russia to gain from its invasion, but I do want people to stop dying, Ukraine to stop being turned into the Somme, and for gas to fall in price. Therefore, I want the smouldering war to be quenched, a new iron curtain wherever it goes, and for the rest of Ukraine to be garrisoned heavily as a protection against any future Russian territorial ambitions. So I prefer what I perceive to be Trump's solution, thab what I perceive to be Biden's.
I guess that Trump will try and do some kind of 'deal', it might work for a short period. But long term the problem with Russia is going to persist. Unfortunately, I don't think Eastern Europe can really be garrisoned, the war will just start up somewhere else again. It will be like whack a mole for the indefinite future.
What I think would be good in the longer term is for Russia to be embraced by the EU, and pulled toward Western Europe and away from China. I realise that at the moment such a thing is almost inconceivable.
And it will remain so. Russia and despotism are practically synonymous historically, and there is no reason to suppose that this will change.
They are, but much of continental Europe once used to be the same.
Until they were defeated by democratic powers.
But you don't want Russia defeated.
Spain was a fascist dictatorship and that ended in 1975 with the dictator dying peacefully in bed, which you might have realised if you engaged what passes for a brain before posting rather than just stringing together a series of hackneyed cliches.
So what ? They’re a democracy now.
If you’re going to snark about engaging your brain, you might consider why we think your assessments of Russian actions are a little haywire ?
I haven't given any assessments of Russia's actions in this entire conversation, except to imply that they won't be good negotiating partners if they think they're going to win more using the military option. If you want to disagree with that, be my guest.
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
I think it's unlikely that Lee Anderson is advocating repatriation of immigrants. He might be racist (I'm not in his head) but 'I want my country back' is a very generalist and meaningless statement - just that you felt more aligned to the country at some point in the past. Many remainers have said they want their country back.
Where does anyone who says 'I want my country back' think it's gone?
If he'd wanted to help that much he'd have been working the area hard since his ousting. I doubt he offered or that Rishi asked, albeit for different reasons.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
This will require two things of Labour, should it win the next election outright and have a free hand:
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.) 2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
The forthcoming Labour Government is going to have to raise tax revenue from somewhere and there is little extra that can be raised from income taxes so all that is left is taxing assets.
And given that Council tax is now in desperate need of reform - changing council tax to an simply x% of market value tax would solve an awful lot of problems rather quickly
Such a change would have just about everyone rioting.
Imagine all the tenants, Paying rent until the pips squeak. Then council tax jumps. Are they going to blame the landlord, or the government?
Yup.
Easily solved, the landlord should be responsible for the tax not the tenant.
And if there's an abundance of construction then tenants can choose to move to a cheaper home, and the landlord is still liable to pay all taxes.
Boris Johnson to help Labour win a landslide in the Red Wall.
These voters hate him, when will the Tories get this through their heads
The wisest commentator in Westminster is bang on the nail again:
Larry the Cat @Number10cat · 45m Have they forgotten that they ditched him because he was hugely unpopular? I realise they're desperate but that doesn't change the facts.
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
We don't all know him as well as you do. Or at least we aren't all so capable of reading minds.
One rule for the rulers and one for the little people.
Close. No rules for the rulers, when they can get away with it.
Why, some enterprising chap is even arguing that American presidents are immune from prosecution due to presidential immunity, even for things they did before and after they were president. With a court system doing its best to help.
The circle Reform seem to be trying to square is the one where you cut taxes, raise public spending, especially on defence and policing and don't increase the deficit or debt.
I'm also far from convinced whether Reform or any other party has got any answers to the current problems of under employment.
None of the parties has any answers to any problems at all. Not really.
Yes but I'm not sure any of the rest of us do either or at least solutions which would be legal and viable.
Agreed on the second point. The major source of stored wealth in this country is residential property and the major force weighing down the economy and making it unproductive is also residential property (which is hugely overpriced because it is in artificially short supply.) These problems are soluble, in theory and given time, but insoluble in practice within the boundaries of democratic governance. Industrial scale home construction, and adequate levels of property taxation and death duties, can no more be imposed than the revocation of the triple lock. Too many vested interests. We have therefore had it. Decline is the core feature of the system, not just a bug.
These problems are perfectly soluble, it just requires a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NIMBYs and solve the problems.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Scargill was a weak and predictable opponent. Nimby homeowners and stick banging pensioners (two heavily overlapping circles on a Venn diagram) are the largest voter blocs in the electorate.
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
They may be the largest voter bloc in the electorate but if the working age population unites against them, as seems likely in the next election, then they'll still lose.
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
This will require two things of Labour, should it win the next election outright and have a free hand:
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.) 2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
The forthcoming Labour Government is going to have to raise tax revenue from somewhere and there is little extra that can be raised from income taxes so all that is left is taxing assets.
And given that Council tax is now in desperate need of reform - changing council tax to an simply x% of market value tax would solve an awful lot of problems rather quickly
Such a change would have just about everyone rioting.
Imagine all the tenants, Paying rent until the pips squeak. Then council tax jumps. Are they going to blame the landlord, or the government?
Yup.
Easily solved, the landlord should be responsible for the tax not the tenant.
And if there's an abundance of construction then tenants can choose to move to a cheaper home, and the landlord is still liable to pay all taxes.
Aside from the landlord simply passing the tax onto the tenants through the rent, how are you going to force the landlords to pay the tax?
People on here are so polite. When Lee Anderson says "I want my country back", he's not doing a John Major tribute act. He is clearly saying "I want foreigners (even if they were born here) to fuck off home, especially but not only those who are Muslims". And that has some appeal to Reform-inclined voters, who remind us that racism isn't actually a non-issue in the UK these days.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
I think it's unlikely that Lee Anderson is advocating repatriation of immigrants. He might be racist (I'm not in his head) but 'I want my country back' is a very generalist and meaningless statement - just that you felt more aligned to the country at some point in the past. Many remainers have said they want their country back.
Where does anyone who says 'I want my country back' think it's gone?
Why does it always need to be 'back' anyway? Can't people just say they want the country to be better?
It might be argued that's the same thing, a bit MAGA, but it's without the A so it's fine.
Comments
The Google pixel photo and software allows you to make all kinds of edits like replacing one person's face with a different photo from the same selection (e.g. better smile, eyes open), deleting unwanted objects, or blurring the background. All at a click of a button with no skill needed.
I assume it's pretty trivial to take this a step further in proper editing software.
:: pinches your cheek and gives your hair a ruffle ::
So that was unbelievably daft - prompting the 'KILL NOTICE' last night. Which was a pretty big deal. And has then understandably prompted a feeding frenzy given there was already a lot of speculation that the Palace have been behaving in a pretty odd way about her recovery from surgery.
Amateur hour in the way they've handled it. Which doesn't bode well, given media management is a big part of the royal job description.
Just as we needed a leader with the cojones to stand up to the NUM and solve the problems.
It being difficult is different to it not being possible.
Are you DJ Trump?
Until like Brexit they win..
https://x.com/miffythegamer/status/1767211033502822831?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
BREAKING: Keir Starmer has called for transgender women to be BANNED from women's sport.
He told the Telegraph that Labour is "supportive" of sports governing bodies that have banned trans women from participating, calling the bans "common sense".
https://x.com/leftiestats/status/1767271520995270667?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Has the Princess of Wales been seen in a coffin photoshopped onto an image of her being cremated in the Alps?
(Am I doing this right?)
Edit - also, what the actual fuckety fuck is up with Vanilla?
Consider this photo
The Valley Of Death the Light Brigade charged into. Or is it? Or has the scene been improved? People are still arguing.
Britain is struggling with quasi-stagnation since 2008 but so are most other developed countries, the one standout being the USA which happens to have become the world’s largest oil producer, has been gorging on cheap fracked gas for years, has better demographics than almost any of its peers and has market economies of scale that are pretty hard to emulate even across the EU.
Some of our peers have constrained housing stock but many (most) have far less of a supply shortage and much more affordable homes. That hasn’t stopped them stagnating though. Take Italy. Probably the biggest oversupply of houses on the continent but the epitome of long term economic stagnation. And some of the most successful have pretty expensive housing. Our businesses don’t invest enough, but that’s not because they’re paying off mortgages on houses.
So I think building more will help in a lot of ways but we’ll need more reform than just that.
Might as well have killed himself then climbed into a sportsbag and zipped it shut. Much warmer, if nothing else.
Or Angry Anderson, famous antipodean wedding crooner?
Solving the housing crisis and shifting the burden of taxation from earnings to assets are both outside the Overton window. Hence the fact that Labour and Tory economic policy are almost identical.
Anderson is an out and out racist, and should be recognised as such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XooISvoZ_rs
(You know or you don’t).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2024/03/11/keir-starmer-backs-ban-on-transgender-female-competition/
If Labour wins a landslide majority, with this bloc having lost, then Labour has a chance to move the Overton window.
They may not, but they have a chance.
Cheaper housing would reduce pressure on wage inflation. Which would slow down inflation on everything else.
Cheaper housing would massively reduce the welfare bill.
Housing not being a one way punt to double digit returns would force people to invest in other things.
Yes, cheaper housing is not a cure for everything. But it would be quite helpful.
Even the broadsheets retouch the important photos.
It has always been thus. It’s a bit funny that they get sniffy if someone else does it.
Harold Wilson.
The asset sweating mentality of British industry is a big issue, as is the financialised approach to building a business: get it to a certain scale then exit, rather than keep going.
Journalists have guidelines for ethical photo editing.
See, for example:
https://nppa.org/resources/code-ethics#
https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/visuals
The reason the photo agencies dropped the picture was that they had no way of ascertaining whether the obvious edits were neutral, or misleading.
It is very noticeable that this aspect of the extreme does not set out the stall explicitly, but it is important to recognise that it is the present and the past, and its consequences now, they don't accept, not just future policy.
When non-acceptance of the present makeup of the UK is turned from rhetoric to policy, then we are in trouble.
But you are right. Starmer once again showing his inner w*****!
BTW, Matt:
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1767240267659108731
1. A complete U-turn from Reeves on her resistance to ramping up the taxation of assets (as things stand she's dug her heels in on wealth taxes and the equalisation of CGT and income tax rates, every bit as much as she has on income tax and NI rises.)
2. Starmer not to give in to Nimby strop throwing by newly returned Labour MPs sitting on small majorities in green belt seats, and instead to force them and their constituents to put up with unwanted and resented new houses.
There's more chance of those things happening than there is of the bloody triple lock being consigned to the dustbin, but not that much more.
If Starmer does the right thing, it'll be brave, but he'll be doing the right thing for the country and possibly one of the all-time greatest and most significant PMs as a result.
Or he could just be a lickspittle who gets into Downing St but doesn't actually want to help the country once there and is instead just concerned about getting re-elected.
The choice is his. I expect the latter, but hope for the former. Not holding my breath though.
You can now be completely racist and apparently it is "explainable".
A man says seeing a black woman makes you hate all black people and apparently that is not racist.
This country is screwed - and the Tories didn't stand up to it for electoral advantage. No spines.
Somebody is going to end up getting murdered because of this stuff. Mark my words.
And given that Council tax is now in desperate need of reform - changing council tax to an simply x% of market value tax would solve an awful lot of problems rather quickly
Argentine President Javier Milei hit by scandal over own pay rise
Libertarian leader fires labour secretary in bid to stem fallout over 48% salary increase
https://www.ft.com/content/28d65d2f-ab79-43ca-8a53-b44ede259535
It is racist and disgraceful. Not seen anyone say otherwise.
He was trying to advise investors to buy into launch companies with a view to moving the manufacturing to… China. Including buying into US companies.
For those who don’t know ITAR (which bans this) is one law that everyone in US politics from AOC to Donald Trump agree on.
So apart from his moronic advice to try and do a chop job on technology companies, he was trying to get everyone involved life at Club Fed.
And he was an “investment expert” for UK banks….
But you don't want Russia defeated.
It is highly unlikely that, given his background, he will be generating the kind of memos sent between officials under Thatcher. There are some excoriating her obsession with “the ozone layer nonsense” that are comedy gold. Sir Jasper Quigley all the way….
The local planning regime is sclerotic, time consuming, and dominated by local councillors whose main interest is supporting NIMBYs in their wards (even though I have actually never heard anyone blame the loss of a seat, still less a Council, on a planning decision - the NIMBYs are invariably small groups who shout very loudly).
Labour should lay down national residential building standards. including minimum room sizes. a maximum numbers of habitable rooms per acre, ratios of outside space to the number of residential units, perhaps height restrictions, which could be related to other buildings in the area, and they should pass legislation saying that any development which meets the standards will automatically proceed, the only role of the local council will be to confirm that the standards are met and monitor the development to ensure that it is built in accordance with the plans.
They should also stop the absurd proliferation of conservation areas - I'd get rid of the lot and replace them with a wider listing regime - I can see, for example, that you might want to preserve streets such as those that border Clapham Common, which I happen to know, but there is absolutely no reason to extend conservation areas to several streets away which cannot be seen from the Common. If buildings are genuinely worthy of preservation they should be listed, if not they should be available for development.
When it comes to new development in greeenfield areas (which should continue to be carefully considered) land should be compulsorily purchased at its agricultural value and the planning gain should accrue to the state since it is, after all, the state that creates the gain by zoning the land for development. This is not a particularly radical idea - it was used to build many postwar developments including Milton Keynes
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/labour-mp-angela-rayner-cleared-28798066
Oh well, onto beergate 3.0 then
Emperor Justinian, women's libber. That was a surprise, to me at least.
(Justinian's code, as we now often describe this work, did keep divorce, despite the opposition of many church leaders, because banning it would "increase the potential for poisonings".)
Imagine all the tenants, Paying rent until the pips squeak. Then council tax jumps. Are they going to blame the landlord, or the government?
Yup.
One rule for the rulers and one for the little people.
They’re a democracy now.
If you’re going to snark about engaging your brain, you might consider why we think your assessments of Russian actions are a little haywire ?
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1767281106611572882?t=GtMAQVxTpDHIbQ6vnxm0uQ&s=19
Kenneth Williams: “ Hello, my name is Stuart Farquhar”.
Sid James: “Stupid WHAT?”
And it is a big if
These voters hate him, when will the Tories get this through their heads
And if there's an abundance of construction then tenants can choose to move to a cheaper home, and the landlord is still liable to pay all taxes.
Larry the Cat
@Number10cat
·
45m
Have they forgotten that they ditched him because he was hugely unpopular? I realise they're desperate but that doesn't change the facts.
https://twitter.com/Number10cat/status/1767297628558311841
Why, some enterprising chap is even arguing that American presidents are immune from prosecution due to presidential immunity, even for things they did before and after they were president. With a court system doing its best to help.
It might be argued that's the same thing, a bit MAGA, but it's without the A so it's fine.