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.
I take it you would have supported Hitler's excuses for his invasions, e.g. of Poland? Or Stalin's for his Polish and Finnish adventures? Or perhaps, just perhaps, like Putin, they are lying about their motivations?
Note, in all these cases, it was larger countries bullying smaller ones.
Putin is claiming vast swathes of eastern Europe as being under Russian control. This ignores the rather (IMV) significant point that those democratic countries do not want to be part of his empire. When he goes after them, will you be singing the same tune: "But this is existential to Russia!"
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
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".
Pre-election, it would have to be a quick Westminster stitch-up... sorry, rapid Parliamentary Consensus. There isn't really time for anything else. (Which, in turn, helps keep Rishi in the ducking stool, because the only consensus is that nobody likes Rishi. The right would hate Mordaunt even more and the left would be terrified of Braverman getting the gig.)
Post-election, the membership can't be ignored. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to 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".
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?
There is a certain brand of person that is utterly weirdly obsessed with the Ulex (and, to a lesser extent the Ulez). These people rarely live in or even visit London, are very poor inconsiderate drivers, and have ancient cars that do not work properly and cannot travel at 20mph without causing internal damage to both vehicle and motorist. Typically, they wear sweaty open-backed brown leather gloves while muttering about Meghan Markle. If you encounter these people, avoid them at all costs.
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.
I take it you would have supported Hitler's excuses for his invasions, e.g. of Poland? Or Stalin's for his Polish and Finnish adventures? Or perhaps, just perhaps, like Putin, they are lying about their motivations?
Note, in all these cases, it was larger countries bullying smaller ones.
Putin is claiming vast swathes of eastern Europe as being under Russian control. This ignores the rather (IMV) significant point that those democratic countries do not want to be part of his empire. When he goes after them, will you be singing the same tune: "But this is existential to Russia!"
If you want to understand your opponent, try to see it from your opponent's POV. Otherwise people will say things like "I take it you would have supported Ireland in the Anglo-Irish War".
Putin is popular in Russia but if Russian forces take the four territories that remain to be fully taken (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zap, Kherson) and then he wants to push ahead into Ukraine to ensure neutralisation and non-membership of NATO, or even "only" to take Odessa and make Ukraine landlocked, that's when he might face powerful internal opposition including within the armed forces, because of the numbers of lives being lost on the Russian side.
As for the EU, the Russian leadership isn't especially concerned with it. They'd have few problems with Ukraine joining the EU. NATO is a very different matter.
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
Well, that means that 45% have. And degrees weren’t, in my young days, mandatory for jobs for which they now are. And I’m not only referring to nursing, but also to accounting, the law, and pharmacy, to name only three. Bright lads and lasses could get articles, or ‘professional apprenticeships’ having left school at 16. A few years ago I met a chap with whom I’d been at school, who’d left at 16 with 7 or 8 O levels and had risen high in the banking world on professional exams alone.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
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.
I take it you would have supported Hitler's excuses for his invasions, e.g. of Poland? Or Stalin's for his Polish and Finnish adventures? Or perhaps, just perhaps, like Putin, they are lying about their motivations?
Note, in all these cases, it was larger countries bullying smaller ones.
Putin is claiming vast swathes of eastern Europe as being under Russian control. This ignores the rather (IMV) significant point that those democratic countries do not want to be part of his empire. When he goes after them, will you be singing the same tune: "But this is existential to Russia!"
If you want to understand your opponent, try to see it from your opponent's POV. Otherwise people will say things like "I take it you would have supported Ireland in the Anglo-Irish War".
Putin is popular in Russia but if Russian forces take the four territories that remain to be fully taken (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zap, Kherson) and then he wants to push ahead into Ukraine to ensure neutralisation and non-membership of NATO, or even "only" to take Odessa and make Ukraine landlocked, that's when he might face powerful internal opposition including within the armed forces, because of the numbers of lives being lost on the Russian side.
*Might* being the relevant clause. Or perhaps those people behind might think: "He's won! Let's push for more! It's only a few lives!" I fail to see why you think the Russian leadership and oligarchs will suddenly develop a compassion for their people. That kinda goes against the entirety of Russian history.
As for seeing it from your opponent's POV: that's fine, and wise. But you should not necessarily believe your opponent's view, or condone it. Especially if your opponent does not see *your* view.
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".
Pre-election, it would have to be a quick Westminster stitch-up... sorry, rapid Parliamentary Consensus. There isn't really time for anything else. (Which, in turn, helps keep Rishi in the ducking stool, because the only consensus is that nobody likes Rishi. The right would hate Mordaunt even more and the left would be terrified of Braverman getting the gig.)
Post-election, the membership can't be ignored. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to you.
If the party board so desire, a very quick full party election could be concluded swiftly.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
That’s just emotional blackmail. Working class people aren’t little cissies who mustn’t be questioned.
Emotional blackmail might not be the right term, but it’s laughable that she shouldn’t be scrutinised just because she’s not posh.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
It does, doesn’t it. Personally, I’ve got a lot of admiration for Ms Rayner. Talk about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps!
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
I’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
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
I’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
Not to me it doesn't. Its about Labour being whiter than white, especially when they like to attack others for wrongdoing (alleged or real). I have no way of knowing the truth here, but suspect she has made a small mistake or even had poor advice, but by not publishing the advice (as she has asked others, e.g. Sunak, to do) she is making it look worse than it needs to be.
I think politics is better for her presence, and hope this can all be resolved, but its not bullying to ask questions about politicians affairs.
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.
I take it you would have supported Hitler's excuses for his invasions, e.g. of Poland? Or Stalin's for his Polish and Finnish adventures? Or perhaps, just perhaps, like Putin, they are lying about their motivations?
Note, in all these cases, it was larger countries bullying smaller ones.
Putin is claiming vast swathes of eastern Europe as being under Russian control. This ignores the rather (IMV) significant point that those democratic countries do not want to be part of his empire. When he goes after them, will you be singing the same tune: "But this is existential to Russia!"
If you want to understand your opponent, try to see it from your opponent's POV. Otherwise people will say things like "I take it you would have supported Ireland in the Anglo-Irish War".
Putin is popular in Russia but if Russian forces take the four territories that remain to be fully taken (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zap, Kherson) and then he wants to push ahead into Ukraine to ensure neutralisation and non-membership of NATO, or even "only" to take Odessa and make Ukraine landlocked, that's when he might face powerful internal opposition including within the armed forces, because of the numbers of lives being lost on the Russian side.
*Might* being the relevant clause. Or perhaps those people behind might think: "He's won! Let's push for more! It's only a few lives!" I fail to see why you think the Russian leadership and oligarchs will suddenly develop a compassion for their people. That kinda goes against the entirety of Russian history.
As for seeing it from your opponent's POV: that's fine, and wise. But you should not necessarily believe your opponent's view, or condone it. Especially if your opponent does not see *your* view.
I think the conclusion to draw from understanding Russia's paranoid and imperialist mindset is that they're not going to stop until forced to stop.
There's no compromise possible from their point of view. They aren't going to decide the cost is a bit high and so they have to settle for what they have.
The implication is that it's not enough to just give Ukraine enough to stave off defeat and wait for Russia to become exhausted. We have to give Ukraine sufficient support to enable them to defeat Russia. That's the only way to end the war that doesn't result in Russia occupying most of Ukraine and eyeing up other former parts of the Russian Empire.
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".
Pre-election, it would have to be a quick Westminster stitch-up... sorry, rapid Parliamentary Consensus. There isn't really time for anything else. (Which, in turn, helps keep Rishi in the ducking stool, because the only consensus is that nobody likes Rishi. The right would hate Mordaunt even more and the left would be terrified of Braverman getting the gig.)
Post-election, the membership can't be ignored. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to you.
If the party board so desire, a very quick full party election could be concluded swiftly.
There was online voting set up for Truss/Sunak
Wasn't the Truss - Sunak competition the one that seemed to take three years involving a mail in form in the back of a Saga Holidays brochure?
There was no election when Big Rish succeeded Truss because Johnson ruled himself out and #PM4PM dropped out for reasons which still remain unknown but are no doubt juicy.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
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".
Pre-election, it would have to be a quick Westminster stitch-up... sorry, rapid Parliamentary Consensus. There isn't really time for anything else. (Which, in turn, helps keep Rishi in the ducking stool, because the only consensus is that nobody likes Rishi. The right would hate Mordaunt even more and the left would be terrified of Braverman getting the gig.)
Post-election, the membership can't be ignored. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to you.
If the party board so desire, a very quick full party election could be concluded swiftly.
There was online voting set up for Truss/Sunak
Wasn't the Truss - Sunak competition the one that seemed to take three years involving a mail in form in the back of a Saga Holidays brochure?
There was no election when Big Rish succeeded Truss because Johnson ruled himself out and #PM4PM dropped out for reasons which still remain unknown but are no doubt juicy.
Mordaunt didn't get enough support from MPs, then.
They thought Sunak was the Messiah. Turns out he was just an untested bloke with trousers a bit too short for him....
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
That’s just emotional blackmail. Working class people aren’t little cissies who mustn’t be questioned.
Emotional blackmail might not be the right term, but it’s laughable that she shouldn’t be scrutinised just because she’s not posh.
And what's the term for this kind of pursuit of a detailed explanation for someone's private life nearly a decade back ?
..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..
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".
Pre-election, it would have to be a quick Westminster stitch-up... sorry, rapid Parliamentary Consensus. There isn't really time for anything else. (Which, in turn, helps keep Rishi in the ducking stool, because the only consensus is that nobody likes Rishi. The right would hate Mordaunt even more and the left would be terrified of Braverman getting the gig.)
Post-election, the membership can't be ignored. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to you.
If the party board so desire, a very quick full party election could be concluded swiftly.
There was online voting set up for Truss/Sunak
Wasn't the Truss - Sunak competition the one that seemed to take three years involving a mail in form in the back of a Saga Holidays brochure?
There was no election when Big Rish succeeded Truss because Johnson ruled himself out and #PM4PM dropped out for reasons which still remain unknown but are no doubt juicy.
Mordaunt didn't get enough support from MPs, then.
They thought Sunak was the Messiah. Turns out he was just an untested bloke with trousers a bit too short for him....
Mordaunt and Badenoch are both around 3/1 for next Tory leader. The rule of thumb in betting on Tory leader is to lay the favourite. Worth laying both of them?
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
I’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
Totally agree. If two people marry but want to live apart that's up to them - if they are happy that way then fine.
What's not fine is pretending you are to avoid tax implications.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
Burning more coal it is then. Hell by a different route I guess.
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".
Pre-election, it would have to be a quick Westminster stitch-up... sorry, rapid Parliamentary Consensus. There isn't really time for anything else. (Which, in turn, helps keep Rishi in the ducking stool, because the only consensus is that nobody likes Rishi. The right would hate Mordaunt even more and the left would be terrified of Braverman getting the gig.)
Post-election, the membership can't be ignored. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to you.
If the party board so desire, a very quick full party election could be concluded swiftly.
There was online voting set up for Truss/Sunak
Wasn't the Truss - Sunak competition the one that seemed to take three years involving a mail in form in the back of a Saga Holidays brochure?
There was no election when Big Rish succeeded Truss because Johnson ruled himself out and #PM4PM dropped out for reasons which still remain unknown but are no doubt juicy.
Mordaunt didn't get enough support from MPs, then.
They thought Sunak was the Messiah. Turns out he was just an untested bloke with trousers a bit too short for him....
Mordaunt and Badenoch are both around 3/1 for next Tory leader. The rule of thumb in betting on Tory leader is to lay the favourite. Worth laying both of them?
I wouldn't lay either at the moment. Mordaunt is the favourite if Sunak goes before an election, Badenoch after.
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.
I take it you would have supported Hitler's excuses for his invasions, e.g. of Poland? Or Stalin's for his Polish and Finnish adventures? Or perhaps, just perhaps, like Putin, they are lying about their motivations?
Note, in all these cases, it was larger countries bullying smaller ones.
Putin is claiming vast swathes of eastern Europe as being under Russian control. This ignores the rather (IMV) significant point that those democratic countries do not want to be part of his empire. When he goes after them, will you be singing the same tune: "But this is existential to Russia!"
If you want to understand your opponent, try to see it from your opponent's POV. Otherwise people will say things like "I take it you would have supported Ireland in the Anglo-Irish War".
Putin is popular in Russia but if Russian forces take the four territories that remain to be fully taken (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zap, Kherson) and then he wants to push ahead into Ukraine to ensure neutralisation and non-membership of NATO, or even "only" to take Odessa and make Ukraine landlocked, that's when he might face powerful internal opposition including within the armed forces, because of the numbers of lives being lost on the Russian side.
*Might* being the relevant clause. Or perhaps those people behind might think: "He's won! Let's push for more! It's only a few lives!" I fail to see why you think the Russian leadership and oligarchs will suddenly develop a compassion for their people. That kinda goes against the entirety of Russian history.
As for seeing it from your opponent's POV: that's fine, and wise. But you should not necessarily believe your opponent's view, or condone it. Especially if your opponent does not see *your* view.
I think the conclusion to draw from understanding Russia's paranoid and imperialist mindset is that they're not going to stop until forced to stop.
There's no compromise possible from their point of view. They aren't going to decide the cost is a bit high and so they have to settle for what they have.
The implication is that it's not enough to just give Ukraine enough to stave off defeat and wait for Russia to become exhausted. We have to give Ukraine sufficient support to enable them to defeat Russia. That's the only way to end the war that doesn't result in Russia occupying most of Ukraine and eyeing up other former parts of the Russian Empire.
Indeed. Military defeat in Ukraine is the only thing that will give the correct lesson to Russsia - which is why we all need to keep arming the Ukranians to win the war, however long that takes. If they need bigger weapons, then send bigger weapons.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Should I bother to make the fire? Damn fool waste of time if the world is about to end, but it will be a chilly and damp night if the religious are wrong again.
What would Pascal say?
How likely are you to be taken up to Heaven in the rapture? If you’re one of the left behind, you’ll still need that fire. (Dependent on your precise interpretation of Christian eschatology.)
Burning more coal it is then. Hell by a different route I guess.
Crossing 1 Billion Tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta in a vital sector.
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
You may well be right - in which case your party will be out of office for a long time. As Labour discovered.
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.
I take it you would have supported Hitler's excuses for his invasions, e.g. of Poland? Or Stalin's for his Polish and Finnish adventures? Or perhaps, just perhaps, like Putin, they are lying about their motivations?
Note, in all these cases, it was larger countries bullying smaller ones.
Putin is claiming vast swathes of eastern Europe as being under Russian control. This ignores the rather (IMV) significant point that those democratic countries do not want to be part of his empire. When he goes after them, will you be singing the same tune: "But this is existential to Russia!"
If you want to understand your opponent, try to see it from your opponent's POV. Otherwise people will say things like "I take it you would have supported Ireland in the Anglo-Irish War".
Putin is popular in Russia but if Russian forces take the four territories that remain to be fully taken (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zap, Kherson) and then he wants to push ahead into Ukraine to ensure neutralisation and non-membership of NATO, or even "only" to take Odessa and make Ukraine landlocked, that's when he might face powerful internal opposition including within the armed forces, because of the numbers of lives being lost on the Russian side.
*Might* being the relevant clause. Or perhaps those people behind might think: "He's won! Let's push for more! It's only a few lives!" I fail to see why you think the Russian leadership and oligarchs will suddenly develop a compassion for their people. That kinda goes against the entirety of Russian history.
As for seeing it from your opponent's POV: that's fine, and wise. But you should not necessarily believe your opponent's view, or condone it. Especially if your opponent does not see *your* view.
I think the conclusion to draw from understanding Russia's paranoid and imperialist mindset is that they're not going to stop until forced to stop.
There's no compromise possible from their point of view. They aren't going to decide the cost is a bit high and so they have to settle for what they have. ..
This is a good point.
The argument in favour of suing for peace with Russia is that we must simultaneously understand their paranoia, which leads to otherwise unprovoked aggression against their neighbours, while at the same time trusting that they'll stick to a (hypothetical) peace agreement which would do little or nothing to assuage that paranoia.
Absent the surrender of the whole of Ukraine to 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 ?
Tories are struggling to get volunteers to leaflet anymore. Instead they are using the Sunak millions to get the posties to do 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.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
That’s just emotional blackmail. Working class people aren’t little cissies who mustn’t be questioned.
Emotional blackmail might not be the right term, but it’s laughable that she shouldn’t be scrutinised just because she’s not posh.
And what's the term for this kind of pursuit of a detailed explanation for someone's private life nearly a decade back ?
..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 seems she made a mistake, probably innocently enough, and the papers have noticed. It would be strange if they didn’t pull her up on it. I don’t think working class female politicians should be exempt from the rough and tumble of the press.
I tried my best not to criticise Rayner at all here, other for the strange claim not to be living with her new husband and their family. That seems like fibs, yet her supporters accept it as the norm.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
Thanks to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), Taiwan is a dominant semiconductor manufacturing player. It produces nearly 90 percent of the world’s most advanced chips, which power a wide range of devices, from smartphones to medical equipment. Almost everyone in the world uses a device containing chips manufactured in Taiwan.
The earthquake’s impact on chip production remains unclear. TSMC has assured normalcy in safety systems and a gradual return of evacuated personnel. “TSMC’s safety systems are operating normally. To ensure the safety of personnel, some fabs were evacuated according to company procedure,” the company said. “We are currently confirming the details of the impact.”
However, the delicate manufacturing process is highly sensitive to vibrations. Advanced lithography machines, especially the ones from ASML, will need massive recalibration. Disruptions can render chips unusable, causing delays and production shortfalls.
DRAM damage ‘minimal’
The DRAM industry, primarily located in the northern and central parts of Taiwan, and the foundry industry, spread across the north, central, and southern regions of Taiwan, appear to have sustained minimal initial damage, reported market research firm TrendForce. The strongest tremors felt in the northern Linkou area ranged from magnitude 4 to 5, with other regions experiencing magnitude 4 tremors. Manufacturers have begun sequential shutdowns for inspections. Despite the ongoing inspections, no significant equipment damage has been reported so far...
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.
I think wise to view war as almost always a bad idea, and it's a little ridiculous how keen some people are on it when they've no experience of how terrible it is, particularly for the civilians caught up in it.
But for Russia Ukraine, what's the fastest way to ceasefire?
I would have thought... give Ukraine as much support as needed, so they can negotiate with Russia from a position of strength.
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
I’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
Totally agree. If two people marry but want to live apart that's up to them - if they are happy that way then fine.
What's not fine is pretending you are to avoid tax implications.
I have no idea if she has done that or not.
One of the things we discussed here the other week was the number of older people who have lost partners through divorce or death who find another partner but each keeps their own house as a bolt hole and protection against it going pear shaped. I have several friends in this position.
I'm also in the lucky position of having a 2nd home My wife regularly goes off to it for long weekends, but I will accompany her probably only on 1 in 3 trips. Similarly with holidays. We are going to the USA together, but I will be cycling in France without her and she is going to visit family in Spain without me. After 30 years of marriage and I don't know how many years before that (my wife does) we are secure enough to do our own thing.
Convicted terrorism supporter and inciter of racism Itamar Ben Gvir, the Israeli national security minister, is threatening to bring down the Netanyahu administration if it doesn't send the Israeli army in to Rafah, where 1.5 million Palestinians are currently trapped and many are starving.
Ben Gvir following in the footsteps of Pope Paul VI who offered himself as a substitute prisoner for Aldo Moro in 1978 seems unlikely. His idea of bravery seems to be to idolise Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 people by shooting them with an assault rifle while they were praying. Ben Gvir doesn't seem to give a flying fuck for the Israeli prisoners currently held by Palestine.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
That’s just emotional blackmail. Working class people aren’t little cissies who mustn’t be questioned.
Emotional blackmail might not be the right term, but it’s laughable that she shouldn’t be scrutinised just because she’s not posh.
And what's the term for this kind of pursuit of a detailed explanation for someone's private life nearly a decade back ?
..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..
Unfortunately this removes Labour's possibility of replacing Starmer with Rayner once Penny Britannia is at No.10 before the election.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
Musk gives some idea of Starship progress and plans.
It's a few years off, but these sort of costs - for 200 tonnes into orbit - make manufacturing in space a very serious business proposition. (Even Starship 1 will do that.)
https://spacenews.com/musk-outlines-plans-to-increase-starship-launch-rate-and-performance/ ..Musk claimed that the future Starship 3 would cost less to launch than SpaceX’s original rocket, the Falcon 1 small launch vehicle, which had a price of about $10 million, because of full reusability. He estimated the Starship cost per launch could fall to as low as $2 million to $3 million.
“These are sort of unthinkable numbers,” he said. “Nobody ever thought this was possible. But we’re not breaking any physics to achieve this.”..
Indeed. Military defeat in Ukraine is the only thing that will give the correct lesson to Russsia - which is why we all need to keep arming the Ukranians to win the war, however long that takes. If they need bigger weapons, then send bigger weapons.
That's not going to be enough because at some point they are going to run out of people willing to go to the front.
If the West really want Ukraine to win, with "win" meaning January 2022 borders, then they need to accelerate matters while the Ukrainians can still draft enough cannon fodder because time is running out...
That means a massive increase in shipments of lawyers, guns and money like NOW, destabilising Russian Federation internally with far more efficacy than has thus been demonstrated and starting a fire in Russia's backyard by doing a Colour Revolution in Kazakhstan or similar.
Convicted terrorism supporter and inciter of racism Itamar Ben Gvir, the Israeli national security minister, is threatening to bring down the Netanyahu administration if it doesn't send the Israeli army in to Rafah, where 1.5 million Palestinians are currently trapped and many are starving.
Ben Gvir following in the footsteps of Pope Paul VI who offered himself as a substitute prisoner for Aldo Moro in 1978 seems unlikely. Indeed Ben Gvir doesn't seem to give a flying fuck for the Israeli prisoners held by Palestine.
Funny to think Netanyahu is the moderate in all of this (and was out of commission when the raid on the aid workers was ordered). Shades of the Saudi government warning its Western critics that the alternative was even more hardline.
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
I’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
Totally agree. If two people marry but want to live apart that's up to them - if they are happy that way then fine.
What's not fine is pretending you are to avoid tax implications.
I have no idea if she has done that or not.
One of the things we discussed here the other week was the number of older people who have lost partners through divorce or death who find another partner but each keeps their own house as a bolt hole and protection against it going pear shaped. I have several friends in this position.
I'm also in the lucky position of having a 2nd home My wife regularly goes off to it for long weekends, but I will accompany her probably only on 1 in 3 trips. Similarly with holidays. We are going to the USA together, but I will be cycling in France without her and she is going to visit family in Spain without me. After 30 years of marriage and I don't know how many years before that (my wife does) we are secure enough to do our own thing.
That’s nothing like Rayner and her husband getting married and never living together though. The fact people are trying to pretend this is anything like a normal set up is ludicrous, and when you factor in that it works to claim it retrospectively so it doesn’t look like she was dodging tax, you’d have to be the most gullible of fools to believe it. But people are choosing to. Would they if a Tory or Nigel Farage claimed it? I doubt it very much.
Imagine if Boris didn’t live with Carrie and the kids!
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The non allegations of assault were glaringly cowardly
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
I’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
Totally agree. If two people marry but want to live apart that's up to them - if they are happy that way then fine.
What's not fine is pretending you are to avoid tax implications.
I have no idea if she has done that or not.
One of the things we discussed here the other week was the number of older people who have lost partners through divorce or death who find another partner but each keeps their own house as a bolt hole and protection against it going pear shaped. I have several friends in this position.
I'm also in the lucky position of having a 2nd home My wife regularly goes off to it for long weekends, but I will accompany her probably only on 1 in 3 trips. Similarly with holidays. We are going to the USA together, but I will be cycling in France without her and she is going to visit family in Spain without me. After 30 years of marriage and I don't know how many years before that (my wife does) we are secure enough to do our own thing.
That’s nothing like Rayner and her husband getting married and never living together though. The fact people are trying to pretend this is anything like a normal set up is ludicrous, and when you factor in that it works to claim it retrospectively so it doesn’t look like she was dodging tax, you’d have to be the most gullible of fools to believe it. But people are choosing to. Would they if a Tory or Nigel Farage claimed it? I doubt it very much.
Imagine if Boris didn’t live with Carrie and the kids!
Given his track record, I don't find that at all difficult to imagine.
Indeed. Military defeat in Ukraine is the only thing that will give the correct lesson to Russsia - which is why we all need to keep arming the Ukranians to win the war, however long that takes. If they need bigger weapons, then send bigger weapons.
That's not going to be enough because at some point they are going to run out of people willing to go to the front.
If the West really want Ukraine to win, with "win" meaning January 2022 borders, then they need to accelerate matters while the Ukrainians can still draft enough cannon fodder because time is running out...
That means a massive increase in shipments of lawyers, guns and money like NOW, destabilising Russian Federation internally with far more efficacy than has thus been demonstrated and starting a fire in Russia's backyard by doing a Colour Revolution in Kazakhstan or similar.
I'll just save Jessopious some time
Perhaps you should get your nose out of Telegram's trough and ask yourself if the same manpower problem also applies to Russia?
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
I’m a liberal. I think people should, by and large, get to make their own decisions about how to live their lives.
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
Totally agree. If two people marry but want to live apart that's up to them - if they are happy that way then fine.
What's not fine is pretending you are to avoid tax implications.
I have no idea if she has done that or not.
One of the things we discussed here the other week was the number of older people who have lost partners through divorce or death who find another partner but each keeps their own house as a bolt hole and protection against it going pear shaped. I have several friends in this position.
I'm also in the lucky position of having a 2nd home My wife regularly goes off to it for long weekends, but I will accompany her probably only on 1 in 3 trips. Similarly with holidays. We are going to the USA together, but I will be cycling in France without her and she is going to visit family in Spain without me. After 30 years of marriage and I don't know how many years before that (my wife does) we are secure enough to do our own thing.
That’s nothing like Rayner and her husband getting married and never living together though. The fact people are trying to pretend this is anything like a normal set up is ludicrous, and when you factor in that it works to claim it retrospectively so it doesn’t look like she was dodging tax, you’d have to be the most gullible of fools to believe it. But people are choosing to. Would they if a Tory or Nigel Farage claimed it? I doubt it very much.
Imagine if Boris didn’t live with Carrie and the kids!
Given his track record, I don't find that at all difficult to imagine.
Didn't she leave No.10 and piss off back to their other house at some point?
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?
There is a certain brand of person that is utterly weirdly obsessed with the Ulex (and, to a lesser extent the Ulez).
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Indeed. Military defeat in Ukraine is the only thing that will give the correct lesson to Russsia - which is why we all need to keep arming the Ukranians to win the war, however long that takes. If they need bigger weapons, then send bigger weapons.
That's not going to be enough because at some point they are going to run out of people willing to go to the front.
If the West really want Ukraine to win, with "win" meaning January 2022 borders, then they need to accelerate matters while the Ukrainians can still draft enough cannon fodder because time is running out...
That means a massive increase in shipments of lawyers, guns and money like NOW, destabilising Russian Federation internally with far more efficacy than has thus been demonstrated and starting a fire in Russia's backyard by doing a Colour Revolution in Kazakhstan or similar...
Apart from the last idea (let the Kazahks do their own revolution of they want to; otherwise let them alone), I don't disagree with the essentials of that.
The biggest risk to a Ukrainian defeat if the continued filibustering of aid by the GOP.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
The eclipse (first partial to last partial) will be from 4.42pm to 9.52pm BST this evening.
The red heifer is the thing. They're not going to want to keep them all for long past the ready time, in case they all sprout at least a couple of non-red hairs, which some of them already have done. They shipped five from Texas, having classed them as pets to avoid export restrictions.
James Burke should be on this story. It's right up his street.
A date this year between 10 and 22 April is likely.
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Did we ever have a regular on here who was genuinely negatively effected by it? Somebody who drives a 1999 Mondeo into Hounslow every day and is now financially ruined?
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Can they make it before 5pm? I have a dental appt.
Oh, lord, imagine spending your last minutes on earth in a dentist's chair. In pretty much any other circumstances it would make a non believer of you.
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Did we ever have a regular on here who was genuinely negatively effected by it? Somebody who drives a 1999 Mondeo into Hounslow every day and is now financially ruined?
We must have, the way some of us go on about it. I'm surprised they can even afford the broadband or mobey fees to post on PB.
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?
There is a certain brand of person that is utterly weirdly obsessed with the Ulex (and, to a lesser extent the Ulez).
People have all sorts of weird obsessions, don't they. Especially on things that don't affect them.
Yes, I guess you are one example, of sorts. You are bizarrely obsessed with my reluctance to use cash, and bring it up almost daily on here, despite it not affecting you personally in any way, shape, or form.
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?
There is a certain brand of person that is utterly weirdly obsessed with the Ulex (and, to a lesser extent the Ulez). These people rarely live in or even visit London, are very poor inconsiderate drivers, and have ancient cars that do not work properly and cannot travel at 20mph without causing internal damage to both vehicle and motorist. Typically, they wear sweaty open-backed brown leather gloves while muttering about Meghan Markle. If you encounter these people, avoid them at all costs.
One sad thing is that due to the political polarisation nonesense, the sane position has been lost.
We should be reworking vehicle tax(es) to be a function of vehicle weight and pollution.
So that people who are driving small ICE get a better deal. At the moment, the non tax status of 100K EVs is a bit gross by comparison.
Also, look at road calming schemes that don’t penalise small vehicles.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Indeed. Military defeat in Ukraine is the only thing that will give the correct lesson to Russsia - which is why we all need to keep arming the Ukranians to win the war, however long that takes. If they need bigger weapons, then send bigger weapons.
That's not going to be enough because at some point they are going to run out of people willing to go to the front.
If the West really want Ukraine to win, with "win" meaning January 2022 borders, then they need to accelerate matters while the Ukrainians can still draft enough cannon fodder because time is running out...
That means a massive increase in shipments of lawyers, guns and money like NOW, destabilising Russian Federation internally with far more efficacy than has thus been demonstrated and starting a fire in Russia's backyard by doing a Colour Revolution in Kazakhstan or similar.
I'll just save Jessopious some time
Perhaps you should get your nose out of Telegram's trough and ask yourself if the same manpower problem also applies to Russia?
Hint: it does.
Well they do, but not to the same extent because they are drawing from a much larger population and they are adept at getting mobiks from less politically sensitive groups such as Central Asian immigrants, poorer republics like Dagestan and, most of all, from their newly acquired Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts.
Also Russian conscripts don't go to the front (except by bureaucratic fuck up) so they have to convert to contrakti status if they want to be a meat puppet shambling through a minefield. This means a Russian conscription isn't quite the boat ride across the Styx that a Ukrainian conscription is.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Feels a lot like beergate to me.
The Daily Mail insist there are new details but they seem to have run with the same incorrect analysis of what constitutes a "primary residence". Dan Hodges has been told this on a number of occasions but keeps repeating it.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Can they make it before 5pm? I have a dental appt.
Oh, lord, imagine spending your last minutes on earth in a dentist's chair. In pretty much any other circumstances it would make a non believer of you.
Imagine going to eternity with an untreated cavity.
As with the transphobia aka trans hatred, so blackphobia aka black hatred aka racism. The situation in football generally, and in Spain in particular, is appalling right now:
It’s bigotry from ignorant people who think their position is justified through spurious biological pseudoscience. As with most forms of societal hatred it’s societal scapegoating.
The sociologist René Girard wrote about the way in which societies reach a tipping point from which order and reason cede to mob rule, chaos, and violence. To quell this ‘madness of the crowds,’ which poses an existential threat to the society, an exposed or vulnerable person or group is singled out as a sink for all the bad feeling, and the bad feeling bred from the bad feeling.
Anti-woke instigators are scapegoaters, borne out of their own insecurities and envy. Homophobia, racism, transphobia - the list is long and desperate.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Yes. I noticed on TwiX that Dan Neidle has corrected Dan Hodges on some point or other but after a couple of minutes, I lost interest in whatever they were arguing about (something to do with the difference between where you live and where your CGT residence is) and why there were pictures of Angela Rayner's cats. Nor have I heard anyone discuss the matter.
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?
There is a certain brand of person that is utterly weirdly obsessed with the Ulex (and, to a lesser extent the Ulez). These people rarely live in or even visit London, are very poor inconsiderate drivers, and have ancient cars that do not work properly and cannot travel at 20mph without causing internal damage to both vehicle and motorist. Typically, they wear sweaty open-backed brown leather gloves while muttering about Meghan Markle. If you encounter these people, avoid them at all costs.
One sad thing is that due to the political polarisation nonesense, the sane position has been lost.
We should be reworking vehicle tax(es) to be a function of vehicle weight and pollution.
So that people who are driving small ICE get a better deal. At the moment, the non tax status of 100K EVs is a bit gross by comparison.
Also, look at road calming schemes that don’t penalise small vehicles.
Bollards that are the exact width of a 2015 Ford Fiesta would be perfect. LTNLite.
I'd also be in favour of zero-rating VAT on services/repairs for older, ULEZ compliant ICE cars to help bridge the gap to EVs. That would settle the anxiety of less wealthy ICE owners* while reducing the number of new ICE cars on the road.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Can they make it before 5pm? I have a dental appt.
Oh, lord, imagine spending your last minutes on earth in a dentist's chair. In pretty much any other circumstances it would make a non believer of you.
Imagine going to eternity with an untreated cavity.
I'm struggling with the idea that I will have teeth at all, certainly these teeth. I thought that if we had bodies at all then they were some idealised version when I was at a healthy age and had less of a podge. I don't want to be carrying an extra couple of stone around for eternity either.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
The eclipse (first partial to last partial) will be from 4.42pm to 9.52pm BST this evening.
The red heifer is the thing. They're not going to want to keep them all for long past the ready time, in case they all sprout at least a couple of non-red hairs, which some of them already have done. They shipped five from Texas, having classed them as pets to avoid export restrictions.
James Burke should be on this story. It's right up his street.
A date this year between 10 and 22 April is likely.
WTF is the red heifer thing ? Is it a tongue twister competition - repeat "red heifer; yellow heifer" the most times within a minute ?
(The first challenge for the upcoming Trump/Biden debate.)
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
It feels like bullying - a working class woman does well in politics and the Tory press are desperate to find a way to punish her for getting above herself.
That’s just emotional blackmail. Working class people aren’t little cissies who mustn’t be questioned.
Emotional blackmail might not be the right term, but it’s laughable that she shouldn’t be scrutinised just because she’s not posh.
And what's the term for this kind of pursuit of a detailed explanation for someone's private life nearly a decade back ?
..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 seems she made a mistake, probably innocently enough, and the papers have noticed. It would be strange if they didn’t pull her up on it. I don’t think working class female politicians should be exempt from the rough and tumble of the press.
I tried my best not to criticise Rayner at all here, other for the strange claim not to be living with her new husband and their family. That seems like fibs, yet her supporters accept it as the norm.
I think the problem here is not so much the mistake, and I think pretty much NigelB is right that he is probably innocent bur any mistake is inadverten, but how she has handled it.
She appears evasive and shifty and deflecting. For example she refuses to release the tax advice unless the PM and Chancellor release 15 years of tax returns. This is not the answer of a serious politician and she plays the working class girl being picked on for being working class card too. It is cheap.
She is very very happy, also, to dish it out about the highest standards of scrutiny and accountability in public office. Many times she has opined about opposition politicians and demanded transparency from them. Something she is reluctant to do herself.
Indeed. Military defeat in Ukraine is the only thing that will give the correct lesson to Russsia - which is why we all need to keep arming the Ukranians to win the war, however long that takes. If they need bigger weapons, then send bigger weapons.
That's not going to be enough because at some point they are going to run out of people willing to go to the front.
If the West really want Ukraine to win, with "win" meaning January 2022 borders, then they need to accelerate matters while the Ukrainians can still draft enough cannon fodder because time is running out...
That means a massive increase in shipments of lawyers, guns and money like NOW, destabilising Russian Federation internally with far more efficacy than has thus been demonstrated and starting a fire in Russia's backyard by doing a Colour Revolution in Kazakhstan or similar.
I'll just save Jessopious some time
Perhaps you should get your nose out of Telegram's trough and ask yourself if the same manpower problem also applies to Russia?
Hint: it does.
Well they do, but not to the same extent because they are drawing from a much larger population and they are adept at getting mobiks from less politically sensitive groups such as Central Asian immigrants, poorer republics like Dagestan and, most of all, from their newly acquired Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts.
Also Russian conscripts don't go to the front (except by bureaucratic fuck up) so they have to convert to contrakti status if they want to be a meat puppet shambling through a minefield. This means a Russian conscription isn't quite the boat ride across the Styx that a Ukrainian conscription is.
There's a problem you miss: Russia is also trying to run a stronkiest of stronk economy. It needs manpower much more than a Ukraine which is getting lots of financial and other support from the EU and elsewhere. As one small example: there were reports of an unusual number of forest fires in Russia last summer, because many of the people who were supposed to fight those fires had mysteriously disappeared. Or the dam collapse the other day in Orsk.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
As with the transphobia aka trans hatred, so blackphobia aka black hatred aka racism. The situation in football generally, and in Spain in particular, is appalling right now:
It’s bigotry from ignorant people who think their position is justified through spurious biological pseudoscience. As with most forms of societal hatred it’s societal scapegoating.
The sociologist René Girard wrote about the way in which societies reach a tipping point from which order and reason cede to mob rule, chaos, and violence. To quell this ‘madness of the crowds,’ which poses an existential threat to the society, an exposed or vulnerable person or group is singled out as a sink for all the bad feeling, and the bad feeling bred from the bad feeling.
Anti-woke instigators are scapegoaters, borne out of their own insecurities and envy. Homophobia, racism, transphobia - the list is long and desperate.
So after everything that has happened in recent months you're still determined to make an equivalence between racism and trans. Why not just mention the racism in Spanish football? I sense you are trolling - believing there are two sexes is biological pseudoscience? If you want trans fundamentalism to succeed you are going to have to come up with better arguments.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
The eclipse (first partial to last partial) will be from 4.42pm to 9.52pm BST this evening.
The red heifer is the thing. They're not going to want to keep them all for long past the ready time, in case they all sprout at least a couple of non-red hairs, which some of them already have done. They shipped five from Texas, having classed them as pets to avoid export restrictions.
James Burke should be on this story. It's right up his street.
A date this year between 10 and 22 April is likely.
WTF is the red heifer thing ? Is it a tongue twister competition - repeat "red heifer; yellow heifer" the most times within a minute ?
(The first challenge for the upcoming Trump/Biden debate.)
David Lammy should not be allowed to present an LBC show.
Is he that bad a broadcaster?
He's good but why is a shadow minister allowed his own radio show? Seems completely ridiculous that he is.
Because news is regulated in a way that comment isn't.
As illustrated by this story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68761130.amp ...Some networks have previously argued their politician presenters only host current affairs debates, rather than act as news readers, and therefore their programming does not break the broadcasting code.
However, the news about Sir Jeffrey broke during Lammy's show, prompting the Labour frontbencher to report on it as a news story. That could be one of the issues Ofcom investigates when it examines the episode. GB News host Darren Grimes was among those drawing attention to the issue at the time, tweeting: "Dear Ofcom, I assume you'll be sanctioning them [LBC] for this, as you did GB News."..
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
The eclipse (first partial to last partial) will be from 4.42pm to 9.52pm BST this evening.
The red heifer is the thing. They're not going to want to keep them all for long past the ready time, in case they all sprout at least a couple of non-red hairs, which some of them already have done. They shipped five from Texas, having classed them as pets to avoid export restrictions.
James Burke should be on this story. It's right up his street.
A date this year between 10 and 22 April is likely.
WTF is the red heifer thing ? Is it a tongue twister competition - repeat "red heifer; yellow heifer" the most times within a minute ?
(The first challenge for the upcoming Trump/Biden debate.)
I saw the last eclipse in the US, a few years back. We went out to some remote area, along with plenty of other people(!), so there was all this sky above us. Totality was magical. Bit late to say this, but if you have the opportunity, go see an eclipse! Spain gets eclipses in 2026 and 2027.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Yes. I noticed on TwiX that Dan Neidle has corrected Dan Hodges on some point or other but after a couple of minutes, I lost interest in whatever they were arguing about (something to do with the difference between where you live and where your CGT residence is) and why there were pictures of Angela Rayner's cats. Nor have I heard anyone discuss the matter.
Dan Neidle agrees that her primary residence was the house originally owned by her husband, and that she is liable for the tax she hasn’t paid, insignificant as that may be
I don’t really care about that, I just found it surprising how many people are so desperate for Labour to be whiter than white that they pretend a newly married couple not living together is vaguely normal, when it is in fact extremely unusual. When you add in that it suits her to say it was the case to dodge the inconvenient CGT questions, it seems more likely to be nonsense
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Yes. I noticed on TwiX that Dan Neidle has corrected Dan Hodges on some point or other but after a couple of minutes, I lost interest in whatever they were arguing about (something to do with the difference between where you live and where your CGT residence is) and why there were pictures of Angela Rayner's cats. Nor have I heard anyone discuss the matter.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Yes. I noticed on TwiX that Dan Neidle has corrected Dan Hodges on some point or other but after a couple of minutes, I lost interest in whatever they were arguing about (something to do with the difference between where you live and where your CGT residence is) and why there were pictures of Angela Rayner's cats. Nor have I heard anyone discuss the matter.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Yes. I noticed on TwiX that Dan Neidle has corrected Dan Hodges on some point or other but after a couple of minutes, I lost interest in whatever they were arguing about (something to do with the difference between where you live and where your CGT residence is) and why there were pictures of Angela Rayner's cats. Nor have I heard anyone discuss the matter.
Dan Neidle agrees that her primary residence was the house originally owned by her husband, and that she is liable for the tax she hasn’t paid, insignificant as that may be
I don’t really care about that, I just found it surprising how many people are so desperate for Labour to be whiter than white that they pretend a newly married couple not living together is vaguely normal, when it is in fact extremely unusual. When you add in that it suits her to say it was the case to dodge the inconvenient CGT questions, it seems more likely to be nonsense
I don't have any great regard for Rayner, but I have no interest in what's pretty clearly tax lawyers arguing over jots and tittles. And even less in her private life.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The one that was so private that the neighbours heard it all through thick walls and were sufficiently concerned to call the police out in the middle of the night?
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.
AFAICS no published poll projection shows Labour winning SCon seats - the SNP are doing the heavy lifting to make Scotland Tory-free, so the 'Get the Tories out' message might have more traction for them here.
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
It's noticeable that other than the Daily Mail/GBNews no one else in the media is running with the Rayner story, they don't want to start off on the wrong foot with the new Labour government.
I suspect that the rest of the media have (correctly) assessed that we are bored to tears with it and even if there were something slightly odd about it, it is just not worth bothering about. That's certainly where I am.
Yes. I noticed on TwiX that Dan Neidle has corrected Dan Hodges on some point or other but after a couple of minutes, I lost interest in whatever they were arguing about (something to do with the difference between where you live and where your CGT residence is) and why there were pictures of Angela Rayner's cats. Nor have I heard anyone discuss the matter.
Apparently the Rapture is supposed to happen today. Something about eclipses, earthquakes and all that.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
Can they make it before 5pm? I have a dental appt.
Oh, lord, imagine spending your last minutes on earth in a dentist's chair. In pretty much any other circumstances it would make a non believer of you.
Imagine going to eternity with an untreated cavity.
As per my previous posts, the past couple of years has been pretty much that.
Indeed. Military defeat in Ukraine is the only thing that will give the correct lesson to Russsia - which is why we all need to keep arming the Ukranians to win the war, however long that takes. If they need bigger weapons, then send bigger weapons.
That's not going to be enough because at some point they are going to run out of people willing to go to the front.
If the West really want Ukraine to win, with "win" meaning January 2022 borders, then they need to accelerate matters while the Ukrainians can still draft enough cannon fodder because time is running out...
That means a massive increase in shipments of lawyers, guns and money like NOW, destabilising Russian Federation internally with far more efficacy than has thus been demonstrated and starting a fire in Russia's backyard by doing a Colour Revolution in Kazakhstan or similar.
I'll just save Jessopious some time
Perhaps you should get your nose out of Telegram's trough and ask yourself if the same manpower problem also applies to Russia?
Hint: it does.
Well they do, but not to the same extent because they are drawing from a much larger population and they are adept at getting mobiks from less politically sensitive groups such as Central Asian immigrants, poorer republics like Dagestan and, most of all, from their newly acquired Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts.
Also Russian conscripts don't go to the front (except by bureaucratic fuck up) so they have to convert to contrakti status if they want to be a meat puppet shambling through a minefield. This means a Russian conscription isn't quite the boat ride across the Styx that a Ukrainian conscription is.
There's a problem you miss: Russia is also trying to run a stronkiest of stronk economy. It needs manpower much more than a Ukraine which is getting lots of financial and other support from the EU and elsewhere. As one small example: there were reports of an unusual number of forest fires in Russia last summer, because many of the people who were supposed to fight those fires had mysteriously disappeared. Or the dam collapse the other day in Orsk.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I've been a premier Ukraine booster throughout but I'm starting to feel more pessimistic now. The west's heart just isn't in it. In spite of many multiples of the casualties from the Afghan war the Russian public remains unmoved. Unbelievably some want to go back to business as usual.
The position should be clear. Russia is led by an elite that wants to pursue a war of national annihilation in Europe. Until a new elite emerges or, less likely, the current one has a very visible and clear change of heart, we shouldn't be looking to remove a single economic sanction against them. When we've just weathered the pain of cutting off Russian gas what sort of idiot would want to go to the negotiating table? Let Putin crawl.
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
I've known it once; two divorced people both had custody of their kids and got married. But they needed a bigger place to fit all their kids into, so they lived separately for a while until they bought somewhere. But that was not too long.
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Also, in re Ms Rayner: there were adaptations to be made for a disabled family member. The newspaper making the fuss about the address for the relevant grant being house 2 did not draw the obvious implication of the house 2 not being suitable before then ...
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
I#'d agree with that, if it was a concept universally applied.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
The one that was so private that the neighbours heard it all through thick walls and were sufficiently concerned to call the police out in the middle of the night?
Those Guardian reading neighbours who were anti Brexit campaigners? They felt like calling the police on the Tory who won the referendum and was just about to become PM?? Well I’ll be darned
I do not wish to prejudice myself (or them) but I have a friend in a similar position to Rayner and the advice they received was that you can live in one property but declare another as your main residence for tax purposes. They rent a property but have another as their "main residence", where if sold CGT would not be payable.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
I don't particularly but it's the law of the Russian Federation and when they do fuck up some teenage gopnik's paperwork and he gets his fucking head blown off or whatever in Ukraine there is a hell of a stink in the Russian media.
The Western media uses the word 'conscript' very loosely and inaccurately which confuses the status of people doing their two year mandatory military service and (small p) professional soldiers who have signed a contract and military reserves who have been re-activated.
He says that the married couple had a main residence, the husbands house. and that means she’s liable for the tax on selling her own house
No you are doing exactly what the Daily Mail has done.
Where your main residence is for tax purposes is not the same as where she lived.
“ She has no main residence when she’s married. There’s a joint main residence. Absent an election, the fact he was always at his house, the kids were there, and she was sometimes there, means that his house was the main residence. “
He says that the married couple had a main residence, the husbands house. and that means she’s liable for the tax on selling her own house
No you are doing exactly what the Daily Mail has done.
Where your main residence is for tax purposes is not the same as where she lived.
“ She has no main residence when she’s married. There’s a joint main residence. Absent an election, the fact he was always at his house, the kids were there, and she was sometimes there, means that his house was the main residence. “
- Dan Neidle
It seems to me that Neidle is saying that it doesn't matter what Rayner has said, her PPR was her husband's house and, chances are, she probably didn't owe tax on her own house anyway. But, Rayner has been behaving as though it does matter where she lived, which makes me think she could be in a spot of bother.
Comments
Note, in all these cases, it was larger countries bullying smaller ones.
Putin is claiming vast swathes of eastern Europe as being under Russian control. This ignores the rather (IMV) significant point that those democratic countries do not want to be part of his empire. When he goes after them, will you be singing the same tune: "But this is existential to Russia!"
To my surprise, the kids all got on very well.
Post-election, the membership can't be ignored. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, I'll leave to you.
Otherwise people will say things like "I take it you would have supported Ireland in the Anglo-Irish War".
Putin is popular in Russia but if Russian forces take the four territories that remain to be fully taken (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zap, Kherson) and then he wants to push ahead into Ukraine to ensure neutralisation and non-membership of NATO, or even "only" to take Odessa and make Ukraine landlocked, that's when he might face powerful internal opposition including within the armed forces, because of the numbers of lives being lost on the Russian side.
As for the EU, the Russian leadership isn't especially concerned with it. They'd have few problems with Ukraine joining the EU. NATO is a very different matter.
I saw it on TwiX, so it must be true...
A few years ago I met a chap with whom I’d been at school, who’d left at 16 with 7 or 8 O levels and had risen high in the banking world on professional exams alone.
And this is an intensely private matter, too, by its very nature.
As for seeing it from your opponent's POV: that's fine, and wise. But you should not necessarily believe your opponent's view, or condone it. Especially if your opponent does not see *your* view.
There was online voting set up for Truss/Sunak
What would Pascal say?
Emotional blackmail might not be the right term, but it’s laughable that she shouldn’t be scrutinised just because she’s not posh.
Personally, I’ve got a lot of admiration for Ms Rayner. Talk about pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps!
I realise, however, that that’s not the view of the modern Conservative Party.
I think politics is better for her presence, and hope this can all be resolved, but its not bullying to ask questions about politicians affairs.
There's no compromise possible from their point of view. They aren't going to decide the cost is a bit high and so they have to settle for what they have.
The implication is that it's not enough to just give Ukraine enough to stave off defeat and wait for Russia to become exhausted. We have to give Ukraine sufficient support to enable them to defeat Russia. That's the only way to end the war that doesn't result in Russia occupying most of Ukraine and eyeing up other former parts of the Russian Empire.
There was no election when Big Rish succeeded Truss because Johnson ruled himself out and #PM4PM dropped out for reasons which still remain unknown but are no doubt juicy.
They thought Sunak was the Messiah. Turns out he was just an untested bloke with trousers a bit too short for him....
..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..
What's not fine is pretending you are to avoid tax implications.
I have no idea if she has done that or not.
https://x.com/narendramodi/status/1774844651394228422
A remarkable feat!
Crossing 1 Billion Tonnes in coal and lignite production marks a historic milestone for India, reflecting our commitment to ensuring a vibrant coal sector. This also ensures India's path towards Aatmanirbharta in a vital sector.
The argument in favour of suing for peace with Russia is that we must simultaneously understand their paranoia, which leads to otherwise unprovoked aggression against their neighbours, while at the same time trusting that they'll stick to a (hypothetical) peace agreement which would do little or nothing to assuage that paranoia.
Absent the surrender of the whole of Ukraine to them.
I tried my best not to criticise Rayner at all here, other for the strange claim not to be living with her new husband and their family. That seems like fibs, yet her supporters accept it as the norm.
As a side note, I see TSMC intends to build a new chip plant in Germany.
https://epsnews.com/2024/04/03/taiwan-quake-raises-concerns-over-chip-supply-chain/?_ga=2.10734388.1027905628.1712575012-1192241473.1712575012
..Impact on chip production
Thanks to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), Taiwan is a dominant semiconductor manufacturing player. It produces nearly 90 percent of the world’s most advanced chips, which power a wide range of devices, from smartphones to medical equipment. Almost everyone in the world uses a device containing chips manufactured in Taiwan.
The earthquake’s impact on chip production remains unclear. TSMC has assured normalcy in safety systems and a gradual return of evacuated personnel. “TSMC’s safety systems are operating normally. To ensure the safety of personnel, some fabs were evacuated according to company procedure,” the company said. “We are currently confirming the details of the impact.”
However, the delicate manufacturing process is highly sensitive to vibrations. Advanced lithography machines, especially the ones from ASML, will need massive recalibration. Disruptions can render chips unusable, causing delays and production shortfalls.
DRAM damage ‘minimal’
The DRAM industry, primarily located in the northern and central parts of Taiwan, and the foundry industry, spread across the north, central, and southern regions of Taiwan, appear to have sustained minimal initial damage, reported market research firm TrendForce. The strongest tremors felt in the northern Linkou area ranged from magnitude 4 to 5, with other regions experiencing magnitude 4 tremors. Manufacturers have begun sequential shutdowns for inspections. Despite the ongoing inspections, no significant equipment damage has been reported so far...
But for Russia Ukraine, what's the fastest way to ceasefire?
I would have thought... give Ukraine as much support as needed, so they can negotiate with Russia from a position of strength.
I'm also in the lucky position of having a 2nd home My wife regularly goes off to it for long weekends, but I will accompany her probably only on 1 in 3 trips. Similarly with holidays. We are going to the USA together, but I will be cycling in France without her and she is going to visit family in Spain without me. After 30 years of marriage and I don't know how many years before that (my wife does) we are secure enough to do our own thing.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-795916
Ben Gvir following in the footsteps of Pope Paul VI who offered himself as a substitute prisoner for Aldo Moro in 1978 seems unlikely. His idea of bravery seems to be to idolise Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 people by shooting them with an assault rifle while they were praying. Ben Gvir doesn't seem to give a flying fuck for the Israeli prisoners currently held by Palestine.
Before Johnson became PM, he had an alleged argument with his then-GF. That was an intensely private matter, too, yet it certainly got this place rather excited!
It's a few years off, but these sort of costs - for 200 tonnes into orbit - make manufacturing in space a very serious business proposition.
(Even Starship 1 will do that.)
https://spacenews.com/musk-outlines-plans-to-increase-starship-launch-rate-and-performance/
..Musk claimed that the future Starship 3 would cost less to launch than SpaceX’s original rocket, the Falcon 1 small launch vehicle, which had a price of about $10 million, because of full reusability. He estimated the Starship cost per launch could fall to as low as $2 million to $3 million.
“These are sort of unthinkable numbers,” he said. “Nobody ever thought this was possible. But we’re not breaking any physics to achieve this.”..
https://time.com/6962936/ukraine-lowers-conscription-age-war-troop-shortage-russia/
If the West really want Ukraine to win, with "win" meaning January 2022 borders, then they need to accelerate matters while the Ukrainians can still draft enough cannon fodder because time is running out...
That means a massive increase in shipments of lawyers, guns and money like NOW, destabilising Russian Federation internally with far more efficacy than has thus been demonstrated and starting a fire in Russia's backyard by doing a Colour Revolution in Kazakhstan or similar.
I'll just save Jessopious some time
dodging tax, you’d have to be the most gullible of fools to believe it. But people are choosing to. Would they if a Tory or Nigel Farage claimed it? I doubt it very much.
Imagine if Boris didn’t live with Carrie and the kids!
Hint: it does.
edit: oh, and yes, comrade!
The biggest risk to a Ukrainian defeat if the continued filibustering of aid by the GOP.
The red heifer is the thing. They're not going to want to keep them all for long past the ready time, in case they all sprout at least a couple of non-red hairs, which some of them already have done. They shipped five from Texas, having classed them as pets to avoid export restrictions.
James Burke should be on this story. It's right up his street.
A date this year between 10 and 22 April is likely.
Funny old world.
We should be reworking vehicle tax(es) to be a function of vehicle weight and pollution.
So that people who are driving small ICE get a better deal. At the moment, the non tax status of 100K EVs is a bit gross by comparison.
Also, look at road calming schemes that don’t penalise small vehicles.
"You're An Enabler Of Genocide" | Pro-Palestine Steve Hedley's ANGRY Clash With Julia Hartley-Brewer
This interview was bizarre. HB started it off weirdly by telling Steve Hedley to "sit still"?
Also Russian conscripts don't go to the front (except by bureaucratic fuck up) so they have to convert to contrakti status if they want to be a meat puppet shambling through a minefield. This means a Russian conscription isn't quite the boat ride across the Styx that a Ukrainian conscription is.
The Daily Mail insist there are new details but they seem to have run with the same incorrect analysis of what constitutes a "primary residence". Dan Hodges has been told this on a number of occasions but keeps repeating it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68759573
It’s bigotry from ignorant people who think their position is justified through spurious biological pseudoscience. As with most forms of societal hatred it’s societal scapegoating.
The sociologist René Girard wrote about the way in which societies reach a tipping point from which order and reason cede to mob rule, chaos, and violence. To quell this ‘madness of the crowds,’ which poses an existential threat to the society, an exposed or vulnerable person or group is singled out as a sink for all the bad feeling, and the bad feeling bred from the bad feeling.
Anti-woke instigators are scapegoaters, borne out of their own insecurities and envy. Homophobia, racism, transphobia - the list is long and desperate.
ETA scooped by @BatteryCorrectHorse.
I'd also be in favour of zero-rating VAT on services/repairs for older, ULEZ compliant ICE cars to help bridge the gap to EVs. That would settle the anxiety of less wealthy ICE owners* while reducing the number of new ICE cars on the road.
*Me.
Is it a tongue twister competition - repeat "red heifer; yellow heifer" the most times within a minute ?
(The first challenge for the upcoming Trump/Biden debate.)
She appears evasive and shifty and deflecting. For example she refuses to release the tax advice unless the PM and Chancellor release 15 years of tax returns. This is not the answer of a serious politician and she plays the working class girl being picked on for being working class card too. It is cheap.
She is very very happy, also, to dish it out about the highest standards of scrutiny and accountability in public office. Many times she has opined about opposition politicians and demanded transparency from them. Something she is reluctant to do herself.
Expected better of her, for some reason.
As for your last paragraph: there've been too many stories where that's not been the case for it to be anything other than bullshit. That's what the Russians *say*. Why do you believe what they say?
As illustrated by this story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68761130.amp
...Some networks have previously argued their politician presenters only host current affairs debates, rather than act as news readers, and therefore their programming does not break the broadcasting code.
However, the news about Sir Jeffrey broke during Lammy's show, prompting the Labour frontbencher to report on it as a news story. That could be one of the issues Ofcom investigates when it examines the episode.
GB News host Darren Grimes was among those drawing attention to the issue at the time, tweeting: "Dear Ofcom, I assume you'll be sanctioning them [LBC] for this, as you did GB News."..
I don’t really care about that, I just found it surprising how many people are so desperate for Labour to be whiter than white that they pretend a newly married couple not living together is vaguely normal, when it is in fact extremely unusual. When you add in that it suits her to say it was the case to dodge the inconvenient CGT questions, it seems more likely to be nonsense
And even less in her private life.
Where your main residence is for tax purposes is not the same as where she lived.
The position should be clear. Russia is led by an elite that wants to pursue a war of national annihilation in Europe. Until a new elite emerges or, less likely, the current one has a very visible and clear change of heart, we shouldn't be looking to remove a single economic sanction against them. When we've just weathered the pain of cutting off Russian gas what sort of idiot would want to go to the negotiating table? Let Putin crawl.
I asked them multiple times to make sure I wasn't mis-understanding and they said that is the advice they were given by an accountant and also double checked with a solicitor when they purchased the house.
a) cites a tweet, or
b) uses the word "experts".
The Western media uses the word 'conscript' very loosely and inaccurately which confuses the status of people doing their two year mandatory military service and (small p) professional soldiers who have signed a contract and military reserves who have been re-activated.
- Dan Neidle