I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
IME the law protects bats, not nesting boxes.
An empty nesting box can aiui be removed.
How many of these have bats nesting in them?
Another lot of idiots looking at themselves in the mirror and saying how clever they appear.
They may well need Planning Permission to install one.
Not their property either, so they need to negotiate rental too.
Do bats pay rent? I put a box on my house some years ago. Never crossed my mind to charge them. I wonder how much I have missed out on.
Section 6 of the 1962 Act revising the 1863 Act, which in turn revised the 891 law of Edgar The Odious.
Summary: the bats owe the local liege Lord a Fee Simple for their occupation on his land. It is the duty of any person leasing or occupy the land on behalf of said Lord, to collect said Fee. And for collecting said fee are entitled to a reduction in the portion of their crops they owe
I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).
That makes sense. It works less well when other activities are more mentally active than exercising or chores. I like to skim news articles (and PB, for that matter) and dislike the leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept.
As the SNP are in opposition in Westminster and in government in Holyrood, isn't it just logical for those wanting changed governments to vote SNP in the first and against it in the second?
Though until the issue of independence is resolved that will dominate Scottish voting. Holywood needs a better choice of pro-Indy parties. Choosing between SNP, Alba and Scottish Greens is not an appealing prospect.
The only thing that resolves the issue of independence is independence and it's hard to see how that happens any time soon. With around half of Scots backing a split, the SNP is always going to have a very high floor in terms of vote share. The big long term issue for Scottish politics may be whether the SNP can hold together or whether there will be a Catalonia-style split between constitutionalists and unilateralists. First past the post prevents that at the moment.
I'm guessing the SNPs medium and maybe long term future is a version of old Fianna Fáil, back in the day. A vaguely nationalist cronyist party of almost perpetual government.
If the SNP Green alliance is replaced in 2026 it will be by a Lab Lib Green alliance. Not sure which will be worse.
If I were the SNP at the next general election, I'd focus on polls showing a Labour landslide as suggesting first, there is no need to vote specifically to remove the Tories because they are doomed anyway, and secondly that a strong SNP representation is needed to counter an England-dominated Labour Party in the House of Commons.
Looking at the poll in the header, I think the SNP have a rather basic problem. They are in government and people are sick of the governments. Hard to say "vote SNP to get rid of corruption, incompetence and cuts" when those are everything the SNP government is.
A plague on both your houses is an obvious line for the electorate to take.
We have had that forever from Tories and Labour at Westminster and Labour at Holyrood as well. Choices are few and far between.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
Plenty of those around in the local naturalists' trusts, and the like, though.
Do they wait by the Bat Phone?
Mrs Flatlander used to take calls for NE. At least half were "I've got this bat...."
Dealing with protected species is often quite expensive, and there's a good argument that many are overprotected as individuals (newts etc) whereas their habitat is underprotected.
A rhetorical term for a way of talking where the aim is simply to win the argument, not to arrive at the truth or even prove your own view correct. Argument for argument's sake.
Coppicing and pollarding: two methods of pruning a tree. Coppicing is pruning it to near the ground, pollarding is about half-way up.
I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).
That makes sense. It works less well when other activities are more mentally active than exercising or chores. I like to skim news articles (and PB, for that matter) and dislike the leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept.
The one activity I find I can do whilst listening to a podcast is driving. Otherwise I just sit (or lie) there and do the podcast only. I treat it like reading. Not great for time management but given I'm rarely busy that's fine.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
They are the same people. Same kind of wiring in their heads, anyway.
Some years ago, a friend was a literal tree hugger. Big into the climbing tree to block development thing. Noticed that she and her friends weren’t using proper climbing equipment. And it was coming up to Christmas.
So went to one of the outdoor shops near Covent Garden. The one that had an actual ice wall in it.
The assistant was a bit startled by my explanation of why I wanted to buy a climbing harness - not too many chaps in suits buying for tree protesting. It became clear, for his terrible hypotheticals that he was a protestor himself.
I had a great deal of enjoyment paying with my branded company credit card (the bills actually went to me, just had the company logo on it). I worked at an oil company back then, you see.
The look on the guys face as he tried to process it was hilarious. Literally looking at the card, me, the card, me…
Protestors gonna protest. Everyone has a protest they hate. And those they sympathise with. Hate just gives you wrinkles.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
In respect of aims, yes.
Towards the same aim, lawful methods are being used by the state and unlawful methods are being used by organisations outside of the state, funded in the case of Just Stop Oil by people like Aileen Getty.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals protesting the policies of the elected government.
Anti-ULEZ are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals protesting the policies of the elected government.
Regarding the podcasts, I ran the article yesterday thru a text-to-speech generator. If you can stand the artificial voice I'm happy to distribute the MP3 to whoever wants it.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
Ulez is about money not emissions. When they need more money there will be a new Ultra Ultra low emissions zone UULEZ to con even more money out of people.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
Ulez is about money not emissions. When they need more money there will be a new Ultra Ultra low emissions zone UULEZ to con even more money out of people.
Anyone asked for the policy explanation for the long list of heavy vehicles which are ULEZ exempt?
One of the reason ms for the new Routemaster bus was the need to get rid of diesel buses that were providing a good deal of pollution. Shame they weren’t developed into the full electric version (designed in, but not implanted in the first version, because of battery cost)
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
How does someone like Farage fit into that? Is he classed as a 'professional' politician?
Not sure (genuine answer). I would accept he is a professional agitator and I would not vote for him to be my MP but you can at least say he doesn't exactly see politics as a career choice.
There are other reasons why people might not be suitable as MPs apart from the one I outlined and he certainly exhibits some of them.
Erm, Nigel Farage very much did see politics as a career choice, at first in the Conservative Party. After joining Ukip, Farage was an MEP for two decades.
Yep fair enough. I suppose the only saving grace is that he has been notably unsuccessful in his attempts to get elected to any UK seat.
I don't really get the demonisation of Nigel Farage. He's never been the leader of a racist or sectarian party, and he's campaigned strongly successfully on the issues he's been elected to campaign on. I can understand why he's despised by social democrats, but those broadly on the political right doing it just strikes me as weak-minded pandering. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.
As the SNP are in opposition in Westminster and in government in Holyrood, isn't it just logical for those wanting changed governments to vote SNP in the first and against it in the second?
Though until the issue of independence is resolved that will dominate Scottish voting. Holywood needs a better choice of pro-Indy parties. Choosing between SNP, Alba and Scottish Greens is not an appealing prospect.
The only thing that resolves the issue of independence is independence and it's hard to see how that happens any time soon. With around half of Scots backing a split, the SNP is always going to have a very high floor in terms of vote share. The big long term issue for Scottish politics may be whether the SNP can hold together or whether there will be a Catalonia-style split between constitutionalists and unilateralists. First past the post prevents that at the moment.
I'm guessing the SNPs medium and maybe long term future is a version of old Fianna Fáil, back in the day. A vaguely nationalist cronyist party of almost perpetual government.
I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).
That makes sense. It works less well when other activities are more mentally active than exercising or chores. I like to skim news articles (and PB, for that matter) and dislike the leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept.
The one activity I find I can do whilst listening to a podcast is driving. Otherwise I just sit (or lie) there and do the podcast only. I treat it like reading. Not great for time management but given I'm rarely busy that's fine.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals protesting the policies of the elected government.
Anti-ULEZ are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals protesting the policies of the elected government.
Yes, lawful and unlawful methods are clearly different, but this wouldn't be the first time that lawbreaking antisocial thugs have acted in pursuance of the very same aims that are explicitly pursued by the lawful authorities in daylight.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).
That makes sense. It works less well when other activities are more mentally active than exercising or chores. I like to skim news articles (and PB, for that matter) and dislike the leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept.
"leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept" is a bit harsh Nick. For me it's driving and ironing otherwise I find myself scolling back 10x 15 seconds to listen again to what I've missed.
But if you are really unwilling to accept the brutish pace that the podcasts try to impose upon you, you can listen to them speeded up. I don't but having just done a consumer test I can tell you that 1.4x is fine. 2x is too fast. For me. It might loosen your chains of bondage, though.
I listen to podcasts, but history rather than politics. It's excellent background for when I'm doing chores or exercising (just the right level of attention needed when on the bike to keep me engaged without losing track of how fast/slow I should be going).
That makes sense. It works less well when other activities are more mentally active than exercising or chores. I like to skim news articles (and PB, for that matter) and dislike the leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept.
"leisurely pace that podcasts force you to accept" is a bit harsh Nick. For me it's driving and ironing otherwise I find myself scolling back 10x 15 seconds to listen again to what I've missed.
But if you are really unwilling to accept the brutish pace that the podcasts try to impose upon you, you can listen to them speeded up. I don't but having just done a consumer test I can tell you that 1.4x is fine. 2x is too fast. For me. It might loosen your chains of bondage, though.
For long ones, you can start slow and ramp up the speed as your brain gets used to the last increase.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
Sounds as if it is time for Starmer, Reeves and Rayner, none of whom are professional politicians by that definition. Mind you neither are Sunak and Hunt.
Nor was Boris. Nor Liz Truss. So it doesn’t strike me that the grad/SPAD/MP route is the primary cause of our troubles.
The French system definitely has had a problem with the groupthink of “enarchs” who all went to the ENA then on to government jobs, but they did at least go through a very gruelling selection process and then spend years being taught the ropes of public administration. Le Pen of course being the outsider there, and that being part of her appeal (as was Sarkozy).
There is no magic bullet.
But a situation where political control of billions of spending and many thousands of employees is handed to some one who has never done anything on that scale, has no idea what they really want to do, or how to do it, is not a plan for success.
Add in rotating the figureheads every year or so….
This is why when I did a piece on potential reforms, one of the planks of my suggestion was directly elected ministers of state which to my mind gave several advantages
1) People could vote on policies they wanted for each area rather than select from the set menu provided by political parties
2) People being elected would be there for the full term rather than rotated out
3) The people putting themselves forward would have an interest in the area and know what they want to do rather than being made a minister because they happen to be a bestie of the pm
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Ability tends to correlate with having more moderate views, for obvious reasons (smart people don't believe dumb things).
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
Are you really comparing the modern, democratic state of Israel with a bunch of terrorists? Careful, now, that way you-know-what lies.
See my post above.
There's a difference between the two, obviously. But JJ is, as I understand, talking about wilful breach of international law, not saying that the two thingss are the same.
The counter-rhetoric would be to ask if it's OK for democracies to ignore international law in response to an adversary doing so.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
A rhetorical term for a way of talking where the aim is simply to win the argument, not to arrive at the truth or even prove your own view correct. Argument for argument's sake.
Coppicing and pollarding: two methods of pruning a tree. Coppicing is pruning it to near the ground, pollarding is about half-way up.
They're very fond of pollarding urban trees on the continent. I always think it looks not great.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Well both parties tend to pick candidates who are to some degree more moderate than their membership - surely because there's a tacit recognition you need MPs with some appeal to the median voter. But also might be an age thing? Those looking to be selected tend to be in their 30s and 40s and all things being equal, even if fairly right-wing, will trend more socially liberal than 72-year-olds (reportedly the average age of a Tory member) who feel strongly enough about their views to join the Tories.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
A better education system has led, IMHO, to bright working class lads and lasses going to university and middle class careers rather than rising through the Trade Union ranks. Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Ability tends to correlate with having more moderate views, for obvious reasons (smart people don't believe dumb things).
History is littered with smart people believing dumb things. If you cant entertain a wide span of views you just get the Groupthink we have today. That helps no-one.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Ability tends to correlate with having more moderate views, for obvious reasons (smart people don't believe dumb things).
History is littered with smart people believing dumb things. If you cant entertain a wide span of views you just get the Groupthink we have today. That helps no-one.
If you don’t think smart people can believe dumb things you’ve not been paying attention here!
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Ability tends to correlate with having more moderate views, for obvious reasons (smart people don't believe dumb things).
History is littered with smart people believing dumb things. If you cant entertain a wide span of views you just get the Groupthink we have today. That helps no-one.
If you don’t think smart people can believe dumb things you’ve not been paying attention here!
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
Well, the answer is quite simple then, isn't it? To reduce the risk, your fascist, imperialist Russian friends should just fuck right off back to Russia. That's the way to stop not just the risk of nuclear catastrophe, and not just the risk of the war expanding, but also stop the war.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
How does someone like Farage fit into that? Is he classed as a 'professional' politician?
Not sure (genuine answer). I would accept he is a professional agitator and I would not vote for him to be my MP but you can at least say he doesn't exactly see politics as a career choice.
There are other reasons why people might not be suitable as MPs apart from the one I outlined and he certainly exhibits some of them.
Erm, Nigel Farage very much did see politics as a career choice, at first in the Conservative Party. After joining Ukip, Farage was an MEP for two decades.
Yep fair enough. I suppose the only saving grace is that he has been notably unsuccessful in his attempts to get elected to any UK seat.
I don't really get the demonisation of Nigel Farage. He's never been the leader of a racist or sectarian party, and he's campaigned strongly successfully on the issues he's been elected to campaign on. I can understand why he's despised by social democrats, but those broadly on the political right doing it just strikes me as weak-minded pandering. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.
While you are free to disagree that this kind of thing *was* racist, plenty of people (including Boris and the official Leave campaign) thought it was sufficiently open to that interpretation to give them conniptions at the time.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
Well, the answer is quite simple then, isn't it? To reduce the risk, your fascist, imperialist Russian friends should just fuck right off back to Russia. That's the way to stop not just the risk of nuclear catastrophe, and not just the risk of the war expanding, but also stop the war.
Dura_Ace is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself but he, not you, is the one teaching Ukrainian refugees to flout our traffic laws.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
Brookie, It's a load of old bollocks (to use the technical term). Here in Surrey alone, two candidates have been selected - and both likely to survive the forthcoming massacre - who are decidedly on the party's right. One was a cheerleader at Ms. Truss's relaunch. Heaven preserve us all.
A rhetorical term for a way of talking where the aim is simply to win the argument, not to arrive at the truth or even prove your own view correct. Argument for argument's sake.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
Sure. That's what you've been saying for the last year.
Why would Ukraine be risking a nuclear disaster on its own territory ? And which of the two sides has regularly used mass destruction of civilian infrastructure as a weapon of war ?
https://twitter.com/MamedovGyunduz/status/1777233320209727758 Last night, @KpsZSU shot down 17/24 Shaheds & an X-59 missile. In Zaporizhzhia region, 3 people were killed and 3 wounded in the shelling. Odesa region was hit, causing damage to a logistics & transportation facility. A gas station was also harmed by falling drone debris. In Mykolaiv region, power lines were attacked, resulting in 14 villages & 1 partially de-energized.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
Well, the answer is quite simple then, isn't it? To reduce the risk, your fascist, imperialist Russian friends should just fuck right off back to Russia. That's the way to stop not just the risk of nuclear catastrophe, and not just the risk of the war expanding, but also stop the war.
Dura_Ace is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself but he, not you, is the one teaching Ukrainian refugees to flout our traffic laws.
It comes down to an old Internet issue, doesn't it? How much you trust a poster is telling the truth...
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
A better education system has led, IMHO, to bright working class lads and lasses going to university and middle class careers rather than rising through the Trade Union ranks. Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
55% of even 18 to 40 year olds still haven't got a university degree. The Dennis Skinners of this world who used to be miners or factory workers etc before entering parliament have declined rapidly on the Labour benches. There may be fewer mining jobs around now but still plenty in factories, on shop floors etc.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Given the Tory Party's CCHQ is restricting the ability of Thatcherite, ERG types to get on their approved candidates list for winnable seats and given the Labour Party is equally restricting Corbynite's ability to get approved for selection for winnable seats, the new MPs entering parliament after the next general election are likely to be the most centrist for some time on average
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
The plant is under Russian control at the moment so depending on who did the drone strike, it may have to be hastily rebranded as a heroic act of resistance rather than an atrocity.
Well, the answer is quite simple then, isn't it? To reduce the risk, your fascist, imperialist Russian friends should just fuck right off back to Russia. That's the way to stop not just the risk of nuclear catastrophe, and not just the risk of the war expanding, but also stop the war.
Dura_Ace is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself but he, not you, is the one teaching Ukrainian refugees to flout our traffic laws.
Despite Mrs DA putting on her "judgement eyebrows" I've got the younger one on a motorbike now.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
A better education system has led, IMHO, to bright working class lads and lasses going to university and middle class careers rather than rising through the Trade Union ranks. Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
55% of even 18 to 40 year olds still haven't got a university degree. The Dennis Skinners of this world who used to be miners or factory workers etc before entering parliament have declined rapidly on the Labour benches. There may be fewer mining jobs around now but still plenty in factories, on shop floors etc.
Rayner is basically Starmer's Prescott
Odd metric, pretty much 100% of 18-20 year olds don't have a degree, which would imply about 52% of 21-40 year olds do have a degree to make the net total 45%.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
Brookie, It's a load of old bollocks (to use the technical term). Here in Surrey alone, two candidates have been selected - and both likely to survive the forthcoming massacre - who are decidedly on the party's right. One was a cheerleader at Ms. Truss's relaunch. Heaven preserve us all.
Damn it John, why do you always come over as so reasonable, nice and funny? You're a Tory; I'm not supposed to like you.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
A better education system has led, IMHO, to bright working class lads and lasses going to university and middle class careers rather than rising through the Trade Union ranks. Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
55% of even 18 to 40 year olds still haven't got a university degree. The Dennis Skinners of this world who used to be miners or factory workers etc before entering parliament have declined rapidly on the Labour benches. There may be fewer mining jobs around now but still plenty in factories, on shop floors etc.
Rayner is basically Starmer's Prescott
Odd metric, pretty much 100% of 18-20 year olds don't have a degree, which would imply about 52% of 21-40 year olds do have a degree to make the net total 45%.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
A better education system has led, IMHO, to bright working class lads and lasses going to university and middle class careers rather than rising through the Trade Union ranks. Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
55% of even 18 to 40 year olds still haven't got a university degree. The Dennis Skinners of this world who used to be miners or factory workers etc before entering parliament have declined rapidly on the Labour benches. There may be fewer mining jobs around now but still plenty in factories, on shop floors etc.
Rayner is basically Starmer's Prescott
Odd metric, pretty much 100% of 18-20 year olds don't have a degree, which would imply about 52% of 21-40 year olds do have a degree to make the net total 45%.
People who can't be bothered to learn at school are less likely to go to uni, and less likely to vote, even without anything in university influencing them.
People who are intelligent and engaged in society are more likely to go to uni, and more likely to vote, even without anything in university influencing them.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
Brookie, It's a load of old bollocks (to use the technical term). Here in Surrey alone, two candidates have been selected - and both likely to survive the forthcoming massacre - who are decidedly on the party's right. One was a cheerleader at Ms. Truss's relaunch. Heaven preserve us all.
JohnO , great to see you back.
I am of course a little unsure of what you say as @Heathener knows the opinion of every Tory in Surrey and may be a better guide
However you hit the nail on the head is the current moaning just moaning or does it have a point ? Different by consitituency no doubt.
Nonetheless it is hard to see where the Conservative party sees its future direction. The failing it appears to have had is a failure to manage a broad church movement Everything has to be one wing of the other, whereas to succeed it needs to move forward on a broad front. As yet I dont see anyone who can manage it, so its draw a picture of William Wragg on my ballot paper for another election.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possibly also be considering military options.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas did attack Israel.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Israel lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Israel.
If Russia lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Ukraine lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Ukraine.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
Your post feels a bit eristic! Your use of the term "polar opposite" is clearly an exaggeration. I'm not saying ULEZ is the best approach to reducing air pollution, but it's clearly better than some options.
Pollution taxes are generally regressive. They should be balanced with progressive taxes. However, the London Mayor has very limited tax-raising powers, which constrains what he (or she, depending on the outcome of next month's election*) can do.
* Who are we kidding? It ain't going to be Hall, Garbett or Campbell...
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
A better education system has led, IMHO, to bright working class lads and lasses going to university and middle class careers rather than rising through the Trade Union ranks. Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
55% of even 18 to 40 year olds still haven't got a university degree. The Dennis Skinners of this world who used to be miners or factory workers etc before entering parliament have declined rapidly on the Labour benches. There may be fewer mining jobs around now but still plenty in factories, on shop floors etc.
Rayner is basically Starmer's Prescott
Odd metric, pretty much 100% of 18-20 year olds don't have a degree, which would imply about 52% of 21-40 year olds do have a degree to make the net total 45%.
People who can't be bothered to learn at school are less likely to go to uni, and less likely to vote, even without anything in university influencing them.
People who are intelligent and engaged in society are more likely to go to uni, and more likely to vote, even without anything in university influencing them.
The first article does try to tease those apart.
The second article looks at the related question of why those who attend university tend to be more liberal: is that because more liberal people go to university, or does university turn people liberal? (Spoiler: there's evidence for both.)
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
Certainly thats a view held by the right, but is it actually true ? If so why would local associations put up with it ?
Brookie, It's a load of old bollocks (to use the technical term). Here in Surrey alone, two candidates have been selected - and both likely to survive the forthcoming massacre - who are decidedly on the party's right. One was a cheerleader at Ms. Truss's relaunch. Heaven preserve us all.
Damn it John, why do you always come over as so reasonable, nice and funny? You're a Tory; I'm not supposed to like you.
Just an act. In reality, I'm nasty, brutish and very very short.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
A better education system has led, IMHO, to bright working class lads and lasses going to university and middle class careers rather than rising through the Trade Union ranks. Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
55% of even 18 to 40 year olds still haven't got a university degree. The Dennis Skinners of this world who used to be miners or factory workers etc before entering parliament have declined rapidly on the Labour benches. There may be fewer mining jobs around now but still plenty in factories, on shop floors etc.
Rayner is basically Starmer's Prescott
Odd metric, pretty much 100% of 18-20 year olds don't have a degree, which would imply about 52% of 21-40 year olds do have a degree to make the net total 45%.
No, it is actually even lower. 'The higher education entry rate among UK 18 year olds increased from 24.7% in 2006 to 30.7% in 2015 and peaked at 38.2% in 2021. It fell back to 35.8%in 2023.'' Not all of those will graduate either https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf
A rhetorical term for a way of talking where the aim is simply to win the argument, not to arrive at the truth or even prove your own view correct. Argument for argument's sake.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas did attack Israel.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Israel lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Israel.
If Russia lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Ukraine lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Ukraine.
Those are trite simplifications and also have nothing to do with the point I was making.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
And yet there was the poll published at the weekend claiming that very many Conservative councillors think that Sunak is too left wing.
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/07/carbon-fibre-super-shoe-running-marathon-vaporfly-adziero-tracksmith ..The decision not to restrict carbon shoes had a significant impact on the record books. On both the men’s and women’s side, nine out of the 10 fastest marathons in history have been run by athletes wearing carbon shoes. Comparing the best runners of today with previous generations is now pretty well impossible. “There’s a sizeable constituency of people who think that super shoes have made the world record pretty meaningless,” says Andy Dixon, the editor-in-chief of Runner’s World. “It’s like comparing apples with pears. If the shoe is giving you three or four minutes, then this idea of a world record being a metric for human excellence is definitely skewed. Some people have even suggested that there should be an asterisk by records set with super shoes.”
The only female athlete from the pre-carbon-shoe era to feature in the top 10 marathon times is Britain’s Paula Radcliffe. Her mark – two hours, 15 minutes, 25 seconds – was recorded at the London marathon in 2003; it would remain the world record for 16 years and is still the sixth-fastest time in history...
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
And yet there was the poll published at the weekend claiming that very many Conservative councillors think that Sunak is too left wing.
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
Sunak may well be the most centrist Tory leader for the next decade, much as Gordon Brown was the most centrist Labour leader for the next decade after he lost in 2010 and resigned. Ed Miliband and even more Corbyn left of Blair and Brown until Starmer won the leadership in 2020 and began to put Labour back in a Brownite direction
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas did attack Israel.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Israel lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Israel.
If Russia lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Ukraine lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Ukraine.
Fortunately, the world is more complicated and has more options than laying down your weapons or not laying down your weapons.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, Israel would still be trying to annex more and more of the West Bank, and oppressing Palestinian people in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. Plenty of Israeli politicians -- and, IIRC, you -- have suggested that the best long-term solution is ethnically cleansing Gaza, regardless of what Hamas do.
If Israel held on to their weapons, but stopped using them to destroy civilian infrastructure and lives in Gaza, there would still be an Israel.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas did attack Israel.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Israel lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Israel.
If Russia lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Ukraine lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Ukraine.
Those are trite simplifications and also have nothing to do with the point I was making.
No, but the point you were making compared what's arguably (and I would strongly argue is) an irrational belief, with a present undeniable reality.
A rhetorical term for a way of talking where the aim is simply to win the argument, not to arrive at the truth or even prove your own view correct. Argument for argument's sake.
Coppicing and pollarding: two methods of pruning a tree. Coppicing is pruning it to near the ground, pollarding is about half-way up.
They're very fond of pollarding urban trees on the continent. I always think it looks not great.
Yes I don't like it either. I didn't realise what it was until I read the definition. I just thought they were special trees. Now I think it's a bit horrible.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
And yet there was the poll published at the weekend claiming that very many Conservative councillors think that Sunak is too left wing.
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
Sunak may well be the most centrist Tory leader for the next decade, much as Gordon Brown was the most centrist Labour leader for the next decade after he lost in 2010 and resigned. Ed Miliband and even more Corbyn left of Blair and Brown until Starmer won the leadership in 2020 and began to put Labour back in a Brownite direction
“This year will be worse than last year. However, it will be better than next year.”
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
And yet there was the poll published at the weekend claiming that very many Conservative councillors think that Sunak is too left wing.
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
Sunak may well be the most centrist Tory leader for the next decade, much as Gordon Brown was the most centrist Labour leader for the next decade after he lost in 2010 and resigned. Ed Miliband and even more Corbyn left of Blair and Brown until Starmer won the leadership in 2020 and began to put Labour back in a Brownite direction
He may well be... and he may well not be. Mordaunt and Badenoch are about equal favourite in the betting. I think the former would be seen as more centrist than Sunak.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas did attack Israel.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Israel lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Israel.
If Russia lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Ukraine lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Ukraine.
Those are trite simplifications and also have nothing to do with the point I was making.
No, but the point you were making compared what's arguably (and I would strongly argue is) an irrational belief, with a present undeniable reality.
I was actually comparing two similarly irrational beliefs - those of Russians and Israelis that their wars are existential.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
Coroners are being actively solicited to identity air pollution as a cause of death. That is an Orwellian distortion of the facts to suit a policy push - you couldn't get much more confected.
The econonomical damage of imposing a massive tax on the freedom to travel and make money should not really need explaining. The damage that Just Stop Oil's disruptions do to the economy is not disputed, so why would a lower level but permanent disruption be less damaging? The economy is failing to grow because of the salami slicing effect all the taxes, regulations and responsibilities imposed on businesses over decades that were justified on there being 'no evidence' that they would damage the economy. Yet we are where we are.
The placement of the Ulez boundaries is abritrary - that is thoughtless. It affects those who cannot afford to replace their vehicles disproportionately - that is selfish.
Drones have attacked Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.
Looks like I picked the wrong Eid to stop sniffing glue!
If the Israelis can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Russians will be encouraged to think the same applies to them.
If the Palestinians can carry out atrocities without being stopped, the Israelis will be encouraged to think the same applies...
I used to regularly pick good-guy sides in wars (notably in Iraq) but I've come to feel that atrocities and recklessness by both sides are commonplace rather than the exception in nearly all of them (I come from an Army family and I don't think we have been entirely pure either). That doesn't mean that it's never right to fight, especially if attacked, but that there is a stronger case for ceasefires and negotiations than partisans on either side like to think. The escalating human cost of wars gets underestimated as the world gets bored with fresh reports of horrors. IMHO that's true in both Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, and even more true in gang-led battles like Haiti and Sudan.
Only if you can believe that the ceasefire will lead to a general peace, and the negotiations are in good faith.
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas did attack Israel.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Israel lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Israel.
If Russia lays down their weapons, then the war would be over. If Ukraine lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Ukraine.
Those are trite simplifications and also have nothing to do with the point I was making.
No, but the point you were making compared what's arguably (and I would strongly argue is) an irrational belief, with a present undeniable reality.
I was actually comparing two similarly irrational beliefs - those of Russians and Israelis that their wars are existential.
Sorry, I posted in reference to this one of yours, and ought to have been more clear: ..You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options...
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
And yet there was the poll published at the weekend claiming that very many Conservative councillors think that Sunak is too left wing.
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
Sunak may well be the most centrist Tory leader for the next decade, much as Gordon Brown was the most centrist Labour leader for the next decade after he lost in 2010 and resigned. Ed Miliband and even more Corbyn left of Blair and Brown until Starmer won the leadership in 2020 and began to put Labour back in a Brownite direction
He may well be... and he may well not be. Mordaunt and Badenoch are about equal favourite in the betting. I think the former would be seen as more centrist than Sunak.
Badenoch would beat Mordaunt with the membership most likely, plus Mordaunt has to hold her seat first.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
Thatcherite? He's presided over spending plans so profligate they didn't even make it into Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
Coroners are being actively solicited to identity air pollution as a cause of death. That is an Orwellian distortion of the facts to suit a policy push - you couldn't get much more confected.
The econonomical damage of imposing a massive tax on the freedom to travel and make money should not really need explaining. The damage that Just Stop Oil's disruptions do to the economy is not disputed, so why would a lower level but permanent disruption be less damaging? The economy is failing to grow because of the salami slicing effect all the taxes, regulations and responsibilities imposed on businesses over decades that were justified on there being 'no evidence' that they would damage the economy. Yet we are where we are.
The placement of the Ulez boundaries is abritrary - that is thoughtless. It affects those who cannot afford to replace their vehicles disproportionately - that is selfish.
What's your evidence that coroners are being asked to do anything inappropriate? The evidence for the impact of air pollution on mortality was not based on coroners identifying air pollution as a cause of death anyway.
ULEZ does not represent a "massive tax on the freedom to travel". It is a relatively modest scheme that doesn't affect most people. The UK is currently in a recession: I don't believe it's because of ULEZ! You haven't presented any evidence for damage to the economy. If the effect is so obvious, it should be easy to show it.
With a scheme like this, there will always be a degree of arbitrariness with the borders. That is unavoidable. How does that show thoughtlessness? There was lengthy discussion and consultation.
Something that "affects those who cannot afford to replace their vehicles disproportionately" could be called a regressive tax, as Bart said above. How does it demonstrate selfishness? How does ULEZ primarily personally benefit those who introduced it? The idea began with Boris Johnson: how does Boris benefit personally from ULEZ?
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
And yet there was the poll published at the weekend claiming that very many Conservative councillors think that Sunak is too left wing.
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
Sunak may well be the most centrist Tory leader for the next decade, much as Gordon Brown was the most centrist Labour leader for the next decade after he lost in 2010 and resigned. Ed Miliband and even more Corbyn left of Blair and Brown until Starmer won the leadership in 2020 and began to put Labour back in a Brownite direction
He may well be... and he may well not be. Mordaunt and Badenoch are about equal favourite in the betting. I think the former would be seen as more centrist than Sunak.
Badenoch would beat Mordaunt with the membership most likely, plus Mordaunt has to hold her seat first.
Mordaunt's big chance is now. She is the person of now - after the election, even if she holds her seat, she'll be one candidate amongst many and less popular than Badenoch and who knows which new candidates.
I hear the anti-ULEZ idiots have come up with an actually funny strategy.
Apparently they put up “bat nesting” boxes on the camera poles, which can’t just be (easily) removed due to rules on bat protection.
Or so they think...
Dr Joe Nunez-Mino of the Bat Conservation Trust however disagrees with the legal aspect highlighted by the box’s notice.
He said: “All 18 species of bats and their roosts are protected by law, because of their significant historical decline. You need a licensed bat worker to carry out a check on a bat box, but that does not mean they cannot be legally removed with a correct authority.
“The licensing authority in this case would be Natural England, they have power to make decisions based on the evidence available."
He also said a bat box placed next to a busy road would be highly unlikely to be used by any bat species, so would not be very useful for conservation.
Indeed - but each instance has to be checked out by a “licensed bat worker”, first.
At taxpayer expense, and to check a box which has sod all chance of having a bat in it because it's a brand new box by a busy and polluted road.
It's not an hilarious prank - it's just another way anti-ULEZ cretins are wasting my money with zero impact, either ecologically or to the policy they're campaigning against. They're nothing more than a gammon version of Just Stop Oil.
I'd say Just Stop Oil has more in common with both the aims and the methods of those who erected the Ulez cameras, not those vandalising them.
Methods? Just Stop Oil are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals, the ULEZ was introduced by someone who won a democratic election. Or is that "seizing power" in your view?
Both of them are thoughtlessly and selfishly disrupting peoples' lives, damaging the economy, and restricting freedom to travel on based on spurious, confected environmental alarmism. In both cases, the decision-makers are cushioned materially from the misery caused by their actions, or benefitting indirectly from them. The fact that one operates within the laws as they now stand doesn't mean they aren't cut from the same nasty cloth.
There was extensive discussion and consideration of ULEZ. It was not introduced "thoughtlessly".
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
I don't agree with Luckyguy and agree with Malmesbury that the cretins vandalising things are no different to Just Stop Oil protestors.
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
In a way, it's not a question of political ideology or party: it's simply a question of competence.
If your government is not competent, it will fail to do what is right for the country. Even if it wants to.
So the question is: how do we increase competence?
Stop with the professional politicians who see it as a career rather than a service.
I know. It is pie in the sky and will never happen. But I still think it is the advent of the graduate/SPAD/MP career ladder that is responsible for much of the issue we see today with our frankly atrocious politicians on all sides.
We haven't had a PPE graduate/SPAD as PM since David Cameron. Starmer was a lawyer and Sunak a banker.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
Im more interested in how local conservative branches can end up appointing people who are largely at variance with the membership. Is this the heavy hand of CCHQ or are the candidate committees just in awe of Oxbridge types ?
Thatcherites are complaining CCHQ are imposing only Sunak loyalists on the approved lists, so by the time it gets to the Association rightwingers aren't available to go through for selection.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
So how did you end up in the situation where MPs are less likely to reflect members views ? Why would someone go leafleting on a cold rainy day for a candidate who doesnt advance conservative principles ?
HYU has just explained it. CCHQ has a lib dems only policy.
If only!
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
And yet there was the poll published at the weekend claiming that very many Conservative councillors think that Sunak is too left wing.
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
Sunak may well be the most centrist Tory leader for the next decade, much as Gordon Brown was the most centrist Labour leader for the next decade after he lost in 2010 and resigned. Ed Miliband and even more Corbyn left of Blair and Brown until Starmer won the leadership in 2020 and began to put Labour back in a Brownite direction
He may well be... and he may well not be. Mordaunt and Badenoch are about equal favourite in the betting. I think the former would be seen as more centrist than Sunak.
Badenoch would beat Mordaunt with the membership most likely, plus Mordaunt has to hold her seat first.
If Mordaunt becomes PM before the general election, Labour will be idiotic to put significant resources into overturning her 16000 majority.
Would this be the same membership that chose Truss over Sunak?
I doubt the membership will get a say in Sunak's replacement but if they do "I've swapped my sword for a TRIDENT, I'm Britannia now and I'm going to STOP THE BOATS" will trump "You think men can have wombs and women can have knobs and knackers, you trendy bleeding-heart WOKER".
Even if Rayner is totally blameless, and I think she probably is, over her tax arrangements/house sale, (the money saved is so small and she probably didn’t know what she was doing) why are so many of her supporters (on X) pretending that it’s perfectly normal for a newly married, working class couple with children to live in separate houses? It’s extremely unusual, to the point I’ve never known anybody do it, and makes it look like she is lying/hiding something
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange
Comments
Summary: the bats owe the local liege Lord a Fee Simple for their occupation on his land. It is the duty of any person leasing or occupy the land on behalf of said Lord, to collect said Fee. And for collecting said fee are entitled to a reduction in the portion of their crops they owe
Dealing with protected species is often quite expensive, and there's a good argument that many are overprotected as individuals (newts etc) whereas their habitat is underprotected.
Some years ago, a friend was a literal tree hugger. Big into the climbing tree to block development thing. Noticed that she and her friends weren’t using proper climbing equipment. And it was coming up to Christmas.
So went to one of the outdoor shops near Covent Garden. The one that had an actual ice wall in it.
The assistant was a bit startled by my explanation of why I wanted to buy a climbing harness - not too many chaps in suits buying for tree protesting. It became clear, for his terrible hypotheticals that he was a protestor himself.
I had a great deal of enjoyment paying with my branded company credit card (the bills actually went to me, just had the company logo on it). I worked at an oil company back then, you see.
The look on the guys face as he tried to process it was hilarious. Literally looking at the card, me, the card, me…
Protestors gonna protest. Everyone has a protest they hate. And those they sympathise with. Hate just gives you wrinkles.
Towards the same aim, lawful methods are being used by the state and unlawful methods are being used by organisations outside of the state, funded in the case of Just Stop Oil by people like Aileen Getty.
Anti-ULEZ are unaccountable, unrepresentative vandals protesting the policies of the elected government.
One of the reason ms for the new Routemaster bus was the need to get rid of diesel buses that were providing a good deal of pollution. Shame they weren’t developed into the full electric version (designed in, but not implanted in the first version, because of battery cost)
But you rightly point out one of the flaws in the arguments of those who say "international law doesn't matter".
For the avoidance of doubt, I am NOT saying that the Israelis and the Russians are the same.
(See previous arguments about Israel/Hamas)
Podcasts - or BBC Sounds - are great for that.
The lack of working class MPs, especially on the Labour benches, compared to 50 years ago is perhaps more of an issue
But if you are really unwilling to accept the brutish pace that the podcasts try to impose upon you, you can listen to them speeded up. I don't but having just done a consumer test I can tell you that 1.4x is fine. 2x is too fast. For me. It might loosen your chains of bondage, though.
There are fewer Oxbridge educated Tory MPs than 50 years ago and fewer who went to public school but Cameron and now Sunak tightened central office control of the approved candidates list, only those on the list are eligible for selection by Associations
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/04/05/true-blue-tories-banned-standing-general-election/
1) People could vote on policies they wanted for each area rather than select from the set menu provided by political parties
2) People being elected would be there for the full term rather than rotated out
3) The people putting themselves forward would have an interest in the area and know what they want to do rather than being made a minister because they happen to be a bestie of the pm
There's a difference between the two, obviously. But JJ is, as I understand, talking about wilful breach of international law, not saying that the two thingss are the same.
The counter-rhetoric would be to ask if it's OK for democracies to ignore international law in response to an adversary doing so.
Angela Rayner is the exception, which, again IMHO, proves it.
https://conservativepost.co.uk/calling-conservative-party-members-deselect-your-mp-if-theyre-not-being-conservative-enough/
How was it introduced "selfishly"? Who is being selfish here?
Where's your evidence for damage to the economy?
We have solid research evidence that air pollution from vehicles is harmful to people's health. It is neither "spurious" or "confected".
The decision-makers live in London, so I don't see how they are "cushioned" from "their actions".
In the case of Russia, Putin and his comrades have made it very clear they covet more than the miserly area of Ukraine they've already captured, including other countries. Why do you have any faith that, if they are given vast swathes of Ukraine (as you have called for), they won't just attack in a few more years? And the answer is not just 'NATO'
For Ukraine, it is an existential war. For Russia, it is a fascist, expansionist imperialist one. That's the difference.
In the case of Israel, many Israelis see it as an existential war. If they lose, Hamas and their friends will destroy Israel and Judaism. Yet many Palestinians also see it as an existential war. And that's one of the big differences between Ukraine vs Russia and Palestine vs Israel.
If you call for a 'peace' in Ukraine that involves a Putin victory, then you are not calling for peace. You are actually calling for more, bigger war.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants
That's what you've been saying for the last year.
Why would Ukraine be risking a nuclear disaster on its own territory ?
And which of the two sides has regularly used mass destruction of civilian infrastructure as a weapon of war ?
https://twitter.com/MamedovGyunduz/status/1777233320209727758
Last night, @KpsZSU shot down 17/24 Shaheds & an X-59 missile. In Zaporizhzhia region, 3 people were killed and 3 wounded in the shelling. Odesa region was hit, causing damage to a logistics & transportation facility. A gas station was also harmed by falling drone debris. In Mykolaiv region, power lines were attacked, resulting in 14 villages & 1 partially de-energized.
Rayner is basically Starmer's Prescott
But two points need correcting on what you wrote.
1: If you care about air pollution then ULEZ is a shitty way of dealing with it. Exempting vehicles which drive around all day every day, while taxing vehicles that barely move in the area, is the polar opposite of what you'd do if you genuinely cared about air pollution.
See eg Greater Manchester which did the opposite, scrapping their ULEZ idea and instead targeting the vehicles that actually emit most of the emissions like taxis, buses and other vehicles which are driving around continuously.
2: The decision makers are well off and can afford new vehicles which are exempt from the tax. This is a very regressive tax being levied on the poorer who can only afford old vehicles and can't afford new ones.
But surely of the main factions in the Conservatives, Sunak is firmly in the Thatcherite wing (he certainly is economically very right wing in his instincts), as opposed to the Trussite extreme free marketeers or the populist isolationist Brexiteers like Patel and Braverman? (The one time One Nation wing is dead).
This article, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-education-effect/ , has some interesting UK data on having a degree and voting.
People who can't be bothered to learn at school are less likely to go to uni, and less likely to vote, even without anything in university influencing them.
People who are intelligent and engaged in society are more likely to go to uni, and more likely to vote, even without anything in university influencing them.
I am of course a little unsure of what you say as @Heathener knows the opinion of every Tory in Surrey and may be a better guide
However you hit the nail on the head is the current moaning just moaning or does it have a point ? Different by consitituency no doubt.
Nonetheless it is hard to see where the Conservative party sees its future direction. The failing it appears to have had is a failure to manage a broad church movement Everything has to be one wing of the other, whereas to succeed it needs to move forward on a broad front. As yet I dont see anyone who can manage it, so its draw a picture of William Wragg on my ballot paper for another election.
Hamas did attack Israel.
If Hamas lays down their weapons, then the war would be over.
If Israel lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Israel.
If Russia lays down their weapons, then the war would be over.
If Ukraine lays down their weapons, then there would be no more Ukraine.
Pollution taxes are generally regressive. They should be balanced with progressive taxes. However, the London Mayor has very limited tax-raising powers, which constrains what he (or she, depending on the outcome of next month's election*) can do.
* Who are we kidding? It ain't going to be Hall, Garbett or Campbell...
The second article looks at the related question of why those who attend university tend to be more liberal: is that because more liberal people go to university, or does university turn people liberal? (Spoiler: there's evidence for both.)
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/almost-half-of-tory-councillors-think-rishi-sunak-s-government-is-too-left-wing-poll-finds-as-pm-is-warned-next-month-s-local-elections-will-be-a-bloodbath/ar-BB1lcM8U
In part that's because so much of the left of the Conservative party has fallen away, and Sunak is left wing compared to a lot of what remains. But it's impossible to exclude the possibility that the current Conservative party is just stark, staring mad.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/apr/07/carbon-fibre-super-shoe-running-marathon-vaporfly-adziero-tracksmith
..The decision not to restrict carbon shoes had a significant impact on the record books. On both the men’s and women’s side, nine out of the 10 fastest marathons in history have been run by athletes wearing carbon shoes. Comparing the best runners of today with previous generations is now pretty well impossible. “There’s a sizeable constituency of people who think that super shoes have made the world record pretty meaningless,” says Andy Dixon, the editor-in-chief of Runner’s World. “It’s like comparing apples with pears. If the shoe is giving you three or four minutes, then this idea of a world record being a metric for human excellence is definitely skewed. Some people have even suggested that there should be an asterisk by records set with super shoes.”
The only female athlete from the pre-carbon-shoe era to feature in the top 10 marathon times is Britain’s Paula Radcliffe. Her mark – two hours, 15 minutes, 25 seconds – was recorded at the London marathon in 2003; it would remain the world record for 16 years and is still the sixth-fastest time in history...
Downing Street is considering dropping a requirement on heads to reserve half of spaces for children of other religions or none.
The move to ditch the 50 per cent cap would be welcomed by Tories but could be resisted by education chiefs and campaign groups.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13281949/faith-schools-choose-pupils-50-cent-rule.html
If Hamas lays down their weapons, Israel would still be trying to annex more and more of the West Bank, and oppressing Palestinian people in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. Plenty of Israeli politicians -- and, IIRC, you -- have suggested that the best long-term solution is ethnically cleansing Gaza, regardless of what Hamas do.
If Israel held on to their weapons, but stopped using them to destroy civilian infrastructure and lives in Gaza, there would still be an Israel.
https://www.hotelchocolat.com/uk/caramelised-pineapple-sachets.html
The econonomical damage of imposing a massive tax on the freedom to travel and make money should not really need explaining. The damage that Just Stop Oil's disruptions do to the economy is not disputed, so why would a lower level but permanent disruption be less damaging? The economy is failing to grow because of the salami slicing effect all the taxes, regulations and responsibilities imposed on businesses over decades that were justified on there being 'no evidence' that they would damage the economy. Yet we are where we are.
The placement of the Ulez boundaries is abritrary - that is thoughtless. It affects those who cannot afford to replace their vehicles disproportionately - that is selfish.
..You and I might call it paranoia, but many Russians might also claim that their war is also existential. They believe that, unless checked, their enemies - NATO and the EU - will keep on expanding and becoming an increasing threat to them. Imagine an alternate history in which NATO had collapsed and France was about to be subsumed into the Eastern Block. We'd be feeling pretty nervous then and possible also be considering military options...
ULEZ does not represent a "massive tax on the freedom to travel". It is a relatively modest scheme that doesn't affect most people. The UK is currently in a recession: I don't believe it's because of ULEZ! You haven't presented any evidence for damage to the economy. If the effect is so obvious, it should be easy to show it.
With a scheme like this, there will always be a degree of arbitrariness with the borders. That is unavoidable. How does that show thoughtlessness? There was lengthy discussion and consultation.
Something that "affects those who cannot afford to replace their vehicles disproportionately" could be called a regressive tax, as Bart said above. How does it demonstrate selfishness? How does ULEZ primarily personally benefit those who introduced it? The idea began with Boris Johnson: how does Boris benefit personally from ULEZ?
Oh!
Would this be the same membership that chose Truss over Sunak?
I doubt the membership will get a say in Sunak's replacement but if they do "I've swapped my sword for a TRIDENT, I'm Britannia now and I'm going to STOP THE BOATS" will trump "You think men can have wombs and women can have knobs and knackers, you trendy bleeding-heart WOKER".
It would be unusual enough for people who aren’t married and have young kids not to live together, but if you’re not going to live as man and wife, why get married? So strange