Meanwhile, the GOP in Congress has been focused on passing articles of impeachment for Mayorkas, who is Homeland Security Secretary and responsible for the US/Mexico border. Yesterday, the Senate voted to not even commence the trial that the GOP in Congress was asking for.
The GOP under Johnson is the most hapless and hopeless party I can recall. Even the current Tory party, even the SNP, are not so hamstrung by internal dissent and sheer lunacy. The malevolent hand of a somewhat distracted Trump plays a large part in this. There is now talk of some Republicans supporting the Democrats in forcing a vote on the Senate bill authorising aid for Ukraine. We can only hope that they do and that it is soon enough.
Mayorkas shouldn't have been impeached - he should have been sacked.
That Biden hasn't done so suggests he's happy to have no control of the southern border.
Its sensible politics for the GOP to focus attention on something which both unites themselves and is also damaging to the Dems.
I mean, Biden's lack of control over the southern border is more related to state GOP (like Texas Governor) doing insane stuff (backed by SCOTUS) than it has anything to do with migrants and border crossings. Biden is still being extremely harsh on people seeking asylum or crossing the border - and has asked Congress to pass extremely draconian legislation to let him be more so. The thing is that the GOP can always just say the border is a nightmare and their base will eat it up without much evidence.
Stop waving the pompoms and deal with reality.
Biden has been extremely weak on border control, the opposite to Obama in fact, and the evidence is millions of illegal immigrants.
Trying to blame it on the other side will not work.
Biden has made more executive orders on immigration and the border than Trump has. He defended and tried to continue the Title 42 powers that were preventing people entering the country due to Covid. There was a huge backlog of people trying to enter the country under Covid, who kept getting turned away, and when Title 42 stopped the government had to start processing them. That's why the huge increase in numbers.
As for the problems associated with it - that is mostly GOP caused. You have GOP governors basically lying to migrants to get them on to buses to move them across country to different states - in part breaking the infrastructure used to track people whilst also trying to put pressure on blue states infrastructure. You have Texas National Guard being deployed to put out razor wire bouys to essentially kill people trying to cross into the country (and also killing themselves in large numbers via drunk driving, and not getting paid overtime for the privilege). You have the GOP in the House and Senate refusing to pass legislation they want because if it passes under Biden it takes away a huge political attack for Trump in the GE.
I do not like Biden's approach to immigration - it is still punitive and draconian. If you are a right winger you should look at how Biden is managing the border and beaming because he has conceded in every way to GOP policies. The GOP has gone so far now that they're basically proposing a ground invasion of Mexico as the only way of dealing with immigration and drugs - that's in part because everything they've ever wanted in the past has been given to them. If you are upset that "the border isn't working" (which in essence I would agree with), it isn't because Biden is "weak" on the border - it's because a highly militarised border with a policy of trying to stop anyone too brown into the country will not work, especially when your foreign policy is designed to fuck with every country in the Western hemisphere for centuries.
Biden has failed on border control.
No matter how much waving pompoms or whining about others will not change that fact.
And I doubt 'the Texas NG has put razor wire across the border' is going to bother many people.
Biden's failure is regrettable, not least because its the one thing that could see Trump win in November.
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
I guess Jesus taught John and Matthew English after picking it up himself when his feet, in ancient time, walked upon England's mountains green?
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
Though to quote the (unfortunately pretty terrible) Mary and George, I don’t think Don is as ‘cock-struck’ as James, unless one counts his own member.
1. Poll after poll after poll after poll after poll trending towards Tory ELE 2. Denial after denial after denial that (1) is happening, can happen, will happen
I now there is a general feel of "that can't be true". But such events have become frequent events in our politics. How many polls do we need for some people to contemplate it?
Perhaps the late June election rumour doing the rounds is something we need to seriously consider. Because the longer this goes on the more the trend towards ELE goes on. This one has the Tories finishing the election in 3rd. If they wait, they could finish 4th.
I remember being told at a pharmaceutical conference in 2017 (I think) that cutting ourselves adrift from Europe would have adverse pharmaceutical consequences.
It had very serious consequences in 2020.
When we first to develop a vaccine and inoculate our population.
That's to confuse the depth of our science base with the diminution in our access to European markets. The latter is behind, for example, AZN building a new plant in Ireland rather than the UK.
Obviously we haven't destroyed bioscience in the UK, but we have made it more difficult commercially.
There's a perhaps similar problem with our capital markets, with small UK drug discovery companies finding raising funds in the UK very difficult (see yesterday's interview with the CEO of C4X Discovery) - though that's an even more complicated issue.
It is very hard to raise money in the U.K. for going from TRL1 to TRL9. For anything.
That is, turning an experiment in a lab into commercial product.
This is (in part) because Everyone Knows that The Smart Money is in property. After 30 years of it being a one way punt…
That’s rubbish. British science is great. We are also very good at early stage VC.
Where we struggle is in the clinical stage - drugs increasingly need hundreds of millions to get them to market.
If you look at the US capital providers you could easily have 30-40 PhDs on staff. There are people who spend their entire careers focusing on IO or Cardio-Renal as *investors*. We just don’t have the scale in the UK (or the whole of Europe) to support that.
Moreover the natural exit for most of these companies is Nasdaq given the depth of capital markets and the willingness of generalists to follow the specialists (of you get Baker Bros, RA or Orbimed to lead a round, for example, you are golden).
So there are fundamental problems which I am not sure are sole able. But it’s to do with comparative advantage and nothing to do with “property” like “everyone knows”.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
On the contrary. Extremely successful king. Managed a takeover of GB with complete success, and without getting involved in too many wars, let alone starting a civil war or provoking a major uprising. Shame about his sons and grandsons, though.
I suspect the current “Mary & George” is being terribly unfair to him - the propaganda produced by a disaffected Catholic Scottish Dr in Brussels has been taken as fact. That he and George’s wives had 11 children between them strikes me as a lot of straight sex for supposedly gay men…
What if we weight the figures according to how likely it is, in the opinion of respondents, that Reform will actually field a candidate in their constituency?
Personally I would vote for the Workers Party [1][2] if I could, but I know damned well I won't get the chance.
1) No apostrophe for them either. But unlike James Joyce they have no good reason for the omission.
2) Because of Gaza. Their policy on Brexit is rubbish. I don't even particularly like Gorgeous. But genocide is wrong.
They claim to be standing everywhere, and they do have announced candidates (not a requirement at this stage, obviously) in most places:
On the poll, I do think there's been a small but detectable further shift to Labour over the last week or two - most polls are showing it. Possibly that simply reflects the intense local election activity - I know the Labour phone bank has notched up over a million callls.
A good figure for the Greens too, which perhaps reflects Donkeys' feeling about Gaza.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
On the contrary. Extremely successful king. Managed a takeover of GB with complete success, and without getting involved in too many wars, let alone starting a civil war or provoking a major uprising. Shame about his sons and grandsons, though.
I was going on the evidence of his tweet that you posted.
He was also notoriously paranoid (though perhaps with more reason than Trump).
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
LOL
Could be a pb competition. Sum up magnificent works of art in blithe, uninformed, yet pithy soundbites.
Ignorance is nothing to be proud of. Hang your head that you are not going to subject yourself to this masterpiece.
Finnegan's Wake, however...
It's more the "take that you sneering metropolitan elite! I'm not falling for your snakeoil. I'm brave and different for not liking...Ulysses" attitude that is a little sad.
There is a very depressing streak in UK society, from top to bottom, that someone is "too clever by half".
Not always; sometimes the emperor's new clothes don't exist; sometimes when someone seems to be vapidly speaking in abstractions it's because they are all words and no substance; sometimes people with nothing really to say rely on us forgetting that 'everything that can be said can be said clearly'.
Or, going back to the recent mention of Middlemarch, I have reached the age where I realise that super clever and idealistic Dorothea was wrong about everything, and her sister Celia, who was too ordinary to write a book about, was right about everything.
It's a lazy line to take.
Look at Emin's My Bed. Or any conceptual art produced. Or Carl Andre, who I suppose set this ball rolling in recent times (and before him Duchamp). Always had its lazy detractors who haven't taken the trouble to try to understand what the intention was.
Now, there's no problem with not making the effort. I would like to read Don Quixote in the original Spanish but I'm not about to learn Spanish to do so. But neither would I say that Don Quixote in the Spanish is likely a useless book because other people have said it is.
(Note: I have read Don Quixote in translation and it was superb.)
Expecting people on here - anywhere - to only comment on things they know something about is somewhat, well, quixotic.
Very true but JJ was being very definitive in his criticism of a book he hadn't read. I mean that was just a bit too much for me I'm afraid.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
By a committee, including both Oxford and Cambridge scholars, and thereby confounding at least two cherished PB shibboleths.
I read a history of it - fascinating - not only “a committee” but committees of committees - of academics, many of whom heartily despised each other - If I wanted something to fail I could hardly think of a better way to guarantee disaster, and yet…..
Whereas the Welsh translation was the work of one man (William Morgan, 1588) and preceded the Authorised Version by 16 years.
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
Ulysses is hard going and not for everyone. I would, however, recommend Dubliners, which has some of the most sublimely beautiful prose you’ll ever encounter.
Sounds boring. I'm not particularly interested in fiction anyway, unless it's a very good Thriller, so it having some passages of sublimely beautiful prose doesn't attract me.
It's a bit like The Deerhunter, which people banged on for years was one of the best films ever made and a "must see", whereas I thought it awfully tedious and that the director had disappeared up his own arse.
It all gets a bit Emperors New Clothes where everyone knows they are expected to like it and appreciate it, so all say they do lest they come across like a philistine.
Why should he deny it? If they are going to do it then an ASCOT movement is by far the best and probably cheapest way to do it.
Rock Apes can secure the aerodrome and will be delighted to pistol whip any protesting malcontents while the crew can be threatened with MCTC - Colchester if they blab to the Guardian/BBC.
Surely there comes a time when the Torys will stop this, I cannot see by hanging on till October/November, the Tory share of the vote will improve, what are they waiting for 15% in the polls. For the general wellbeing of everyone, including themselves call an election.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
On the contrary. Extremely successful king. Managed a takeover of GB with complete success, and without getting involved in too many wars, let alone starting a civil war or provoking a major uprising. Shame about his sons and grandsons, though.
I was going on the evidence of his tweet that you posted.
I know TUD and I are both Scots, but do we really all look the same?!
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
By a committee, including both Oxford and Cambridge scholars, and thereby confounding at least two cherished PB shibboleths.
I read a history of it - fascinating - not only “a committee” but committees of committees - of academics, many of whom heartily despised each other - If I wanted something to fail I could hardly think of a better way to guarantee disaster, and yet…..
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Lots of pious folk of a generation now mostly dead truly believed that the AV was the original.
This Baxters to about 37 Tory seats. While I don't think this will happen, something like it remains in the realm of possibility if the Tories continue to try hard to lose as badly as possible, and if anything is being underestimated in both the betting and general media talk. Thus Baxtered, Hunt and Tugendhat would survive to recreate some sort of centre right party.
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
I won't dismiss your lived experience but I will share mine: it is on average worse, sometimes considerably worse, sometimes about the same. I've had far worse experiences at immigration in the US of course, but the US isn't 22 miles away. Among the costs of Brexit this is a small one, but it's a highly visible irritant for people who travel frequently to the EU, a reminder of the loss of status imposed on us by our fellow citizens.
Meanwhile, the GOP in Congress has been focused on passing articles of impeachment for Mayorkas, who is Homeland Security Secretary and responsible for the US/Mexico border. Yesterday, the Senate voted to not even commence the trial that the GOP in Congress was asking for.
The GOP under Johnson is the most hapless and hopeless party I can recall. Even the current Tory party, even the SNP, are not so hamstrung by internal dissent and sheer lunacy. The malevolent hand of a somewhat distracted Trump plays a large part in this. There is now talk of some Republicans supporting the Democrats in forcing a vote on the Senate bill authorising aid for Ukraine. We can only hope that they do and that it is soon enough.
Mayorkas shouldn't have been impeached - he should have been sacked.
That Biden hasn't done so suggests he's happy to have no control of the southern border.
Its sensible politics for the GOP to focus attention on something which both unites themselves and is also damaging to the Dems.
I mean, Biden's lack of control over the southern border is more related to state GOP (like Texas Governor) doing insane stuff (backed by SCOTUS) than it has anything to do with migrants and border crossings. Biden is still being extremely harsh on people seeking asylum or crossing the border - and has asked Congress to pass extremely draconian legislation to let him be more so. The thing is that the GOP can always just say the border is a nightmare and their base will eat it up without much evidence.
Stop waving the pompoms and deal with reality.
Biden has been extremely weak on border control, the opposite to Obama in fact, and the evidence is millions of illegal immigrants.
Trying to blame it on the other side will not work.
Biden has made more executive orders on immigration and the border than Trump has. He defended and tried to continue the Title 42 powers that were preventing people entering the country due to Covid. There was a huge backlog of people trying to enter the country under Covid, who kept getting turned away, and when Title 42 stopped the government had to start processing them. That's why the huge increase in numbers.
As for the problems associated with it - that is mostly GOP caused. You have GOP governors basically lying to migrants to get them on to buses to move them across country to different states - in part breaking the infrastructure used to track people whilst also trying to put pressure on blue states infrastructure. You have Texas National Guard being deployed to put out razor wire bouys to essentially kill people trying to cross into the country (and also killing themselves in large numbers via drunk driving, and not getting paid overtime for the privilege). You have the GOP in the House and Senate refusing to pass legislation they want because if it passes under Biden it takes away a huge political attack for Trump in the GE.
I do not like Biden's approach to immigration - it is still punitive and draconian. If you are a right winger you should look at how Biden is managing the border and beaming because he has conceded in every way to GOP policies. The GOP has gone so far now that they're basically proposing a ground invasion of Mexico as the only way of dealing with immigration and drugs - that's in part because everything they've ever wanted in the past has been given to them. If you are upset that "the border isn't working" (which in essence I would agree with), it isn't because Biden is "weak" on the border - it's because a highly militarised border with a policy of trying to stop anyone too brown into the country will not work, especially when your foreign policy is designed to fuck with every country in the Western hemisphere for centuries.
Biden has failed on border control.
No matter how much waving pompoms or whining about others will not change that fact.
And I doubt 'the Texas NG has put razor wire across the border' is going to bother many people.
Biden's failure is regrettable, not least because its the one thing that could see Trump win in November.
As did Trump before him.
The GOP do not help their case by simply obstructing any legislation on the matter. Along with most other legislation.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
On the contrary. Extremely successful king. Managed a takeover of GB with complete success, and without getting involved in too many wars, let alone starting a civil war or provoking a major uprising. Shame about his sons and grandsons, though.
I was going on the evidence of his tweet that you posted.
I know TUD and I are both Scots, but do we really all look the same?!
Apols ! Reading too slowly and posting too quickly.
Though should either of you be insulted by the implied comparison ?
This Baxters to about 37 Tory seats. While I don't think this will happen, something like it remains in the realm of possibility if the Tories continue to try hard to lose as badly as possible, and if anything is being underestimated in both the betting and general media talk. Thus Baxtered, Hunt and Tugendhat would survive to recreate some sort of centre right party.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
By a committee, including both Oxford and Cambridge scholars, and thereby confounding at least two cherished PB shibboleths.
I read a history of it - fascinating - not only “a committee” but committees of committees - of academics, many of whom heartily despised each other - If I wanted something to fail I could hardly think of a better way to guarantee disaster, and yet…..
Getting a bunch of competing scholars to wrangle *can* work -
1) The task is specific and able to be broken down into small parts (check) 2) There is an overall management who is capable of forcing then to agree on a solution for each piece (check)
They did get lazy and stole wholesale from Tyndale - despite the idea of the KJV being to rid the land of the heresies caused by people reading the Tyndale version.
Lowest government approval by PM (Gallup/MORI): Attlee 31% Churchill (51-55) 40% Eden 34% Macmillan: 30% Douglas-Home 36% Wilson (64-70) 17% Heath 22% Wilson (74-76) 27% Callaghan 17% Thatcher 16% Major 8% Blair 22% Brown 16% Cameron 24% May 8% Johnson 14% Truss 11% Sunak 10%
What is the common factor behind those three ratings of 10% and less? I'd suggest party disunity.
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
I travel a reasonable bit for business (academic conferences* and meetings that clearly must be done in person )
It varies hugely by airport/country. Some it's bugger all difference, others you can be stood in the non-EU lane waiting for one or two people when the EU lane is open, staffed and with no one waiting. Probably comes down to the bosses' and workers' attitude to Brexit and the Brits (or the wider EU/not EU split, not UK/Brexit-specific).
*online conferences do really suck, generally, unless very short - too long staring at a screen and none of the useful making of contacts and getting together to knock an idea together that later becomes a grant application or collaboration. On the other hand, I'm travelling four hours each way next month to give a ten minute presentation and there's probably little else of interest for me at the conference, so I'd much rather do that online if possible.
Why should he deny it? If they are going to do it then an ASCOT movement is by far the best and probably cheapest way to do it.
Rock Apes can secure the aerodrome and will be delighted to pistol whip any protesting malcontents while the crew can be threatened with MCTC - Colchester if they blab to the Guardian/BBC.
I recall from the discussion the other week that you said that the pilots were sort of rebadged with Flight Lieut's wings and stripes, but what about the cabin staff? Are they serving RAF types too?
I remember being told at a pharmaceutical conference in 2017 (I think) that cutting ourselves adrift from Europe would have adverse pharmaceutical consequences.
It had very serious consequences in 2020.
When we first to develop a vaccine and inoculate our population.
That's to confuse the depth of our science base with the diminution in our access to European markets. The latter is behind, for example, AZN building a new plant in Ireland rather than the UK.
Obviously we haven't destroyed bioscience in the UK, but we have made it more difficult commercially.
There's a perhaps similar problem with our capital markets, with small UK drug discovery companies finding raising funds in the UK very difficult (see yesterday's interview with the CEO of C4X Discovery) - though that's an even more complicated issue.
It is very hard to raise money in the U.K. for going from TRL1 to TRL9. For anything.
That is, turning an experiment in a lab into commercial product.
This is (in part) because Everyone Knows that The Smart Money is in property. After 30 years of it being a one way punt…
That’s rubbish. British science is great. We are also very good at early stage VC.
Where we struggle is in the clinical stage - drugs increasingly need hundreds of millions to get them to market.
If you look at the US capital providers you could easily have 30-40 PhDs on staff. There are people who spend their entire careers focusing on IO or Cardio-Renal as *investors*. We just don’t have the scale in the UK (or the whole of Europe) to support that.
Moreover the natural exit for most of these companies is Nasdaq given the depth of capital markets and the willingness of generalists to follow the specialists (of you get Baker Bros, RA or Orbimed to lead a round, for example, you are golden).
So there are fundamental problems which I am not sure are sole able. But it’s to do with comparative advantage and nothing to do with “property” like “everyone knows”.
The "property" problem is one I've seen time and again - "Why risk money when we can invest in something property related? That always works." It's become the plughole down which billion in investment money goes.
"Where we struggle is in the clinical stage - drugs increasingly need hundreds of millions to get them to market." - which is what I was saying. We do the early stuff. But turning it into products on shelves is a long, expensive, risky road.
A few hundred million is chicken feed in the UK financial markets. Deals for that are done hourly. The TRL route needs money - and the desire to spend it in an area.
"If you look at the US capital providers you could easily have 30-40 PhDs on staff" - because they are fired up and interested in investing in the area. If you look at UK banks and investors, what is their focus?
Surely there comes a time when the Torys will stop this, I cannot see by hanging on till October/November, the Tory share of the vote will improve, what are they waiting for 15% in the polls. For the general wellbeing of everyone, including themselves call an election.
They will only call an early election if doing so is the only way to avoid some event that they like less than the certainty of losing the election. I'm not convinced that the possibility of saving a dozen Tory MPs is sufficient to trigger an early election.
In Ireland, for example, the last election was early because it was the only way to avoid losing a vote of confidence in the Health Secretary (the Health Secretary is now the Taoiseach). The Tories still retain a comfortable majority, and Sunak is not at odds with his MPs on any substantive policy issue that is likely to come to a vote that is so important that it might trigger an election.
The worse things get the more likely it is that the Tories will hang on to the bitter end - even perhaps January 2025.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
On the contrary. Extremely successful king. Managed a takeover of GB with complete success, and without getting involved in too many wars, let alone starting a civil war or provoking a major uprising. Shame about his sons and grandsons, though.
My tutor at university, a proud Scot, nevertheless said he was the only vaguely competent Stuart, save perhaps Charles II. She was surprisingly scathing about his mother.
This Baxters to about 37 Tory seats. While I don't think this will happen, something like it remains in the realm of possibility if the Tories continue to try hard to lose as badly as possible, and if anything is being underestimated in both the betting and general media talk. Thus Baxtered, Hunt and Tugendhat would survive to recreate some sort of centre right party.
I thought Hunt was retiring?
Nope, but he is against a very strong challenge from the LDs.
Why should he deny it? If they are going to do it then an ASCOT movement is by far the best and probably cheapest way to do it.
Rock Apes can secure the aerodrome and will be delighted to pistol whip any protesting malcontents while the crew can be threatened with MCTC - Colchester if they blab to the Guardian/BBC.
I recall from the discussion the other week that you said that the pilots were sort of rebadged with Flight Lieut's wings and stripes, but what about the cabin staff? Are they serving RAF types too?
Cabin crew are regular RAF. Yoke Actuators are a combination of RAF and these weird half-man/half-biscuit RAFR AirTanker wage slaves.
On the Rwandan Extraordinary Renditions I imagine they will be supplemented by security and medics.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
On the contrary. Extremely successful king. Managed a takeover of GB with complete success, and without getting involved in too many wars, let alone starting a civil war or provoking a major uprising. Shame about his sons and grandsons, though.
My tutor at university, a proud Scot, nevertheless said he was the only vaguely competent Stuart, save perhaps Charles II. She was surprisingly scathing about his mother.
Marie Stuart? Not at all surprised.Quite the reverse.
I mean at this stage what PM is going to think if I go to the country in June instead of next year I might lift the result from 40 seats to 58 seats. Equally they aren't going to say why don't we save the country from our own party and give Lab a chance.
Not really worth the effort. My Jan 25 bet is still the one I'd be on.
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
I travel a reasonable bit for business (academic conferences* and meetings that clearly must be done in person )
It varies hugely by airport/country. Some it's bugger all difference, others you can be stood in the non-EU lane waiting for one or two people when the EU lane is open, staffed and with no one waiting. Probably comes down to the bosses' and workers' attitude to Brexit and the Brits (or the wider EU/not EU split, not UK/Brexit-specific).
*online conferences do really suck, generally, unless very short - too long staring at a screen and none of the useful making of contacts and getting together to knock an idea together that later becomes a grant application or collaboration. On the other hand, I'm travelling four hours each way next month to give a ten minute presentation and there's probably little else of interest for me at the conference, so I'd much rather do that online if possible.
I believe Eurostar has fewer trains, fewer passengers, longer queues and check-in times, and higher prices, because of Brexit. Can anyone confirm?
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Quite right. The bible was written in English.
By King James?
Who by all accounts spoke English with a strong Scotch accent. He’ll be wearing a satisfied skeletal smile after the passing of the smoking legislation.
Basically a more literate Donald Trump ?
On the contrary. Extremely successful king. Managed a takeover of GB with complete success, and without getting involved in too many wars, let alone starting a civil war or provoking a major uprising. Shame about his sons and grandsons, though.
My tutor at university, a proud Scot, nevertheless said he was the only vaguely competent Stuart, save perhaps Charles II. She was surprisingly scathing about his mother.
Marie Stuart? Not at all surprised.Quite the reverse.
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
Ulysses is hard going and not for everyone. I would, however, recommend Dubliners, which has some of the most sublimely beautiful prose you’ll ever encounter.
Sounds boring. I'm not particularly interested in fiction anyway, unless it's a very good Thriller, so it having some passages of sublimely beautiful prose doesn't attract me.
It's a bit like The Deerhunter, which people banged on for years was one of the best films ever made and a "must see", whereas I thought it awfully tedious and that the director had disappeared up his own arse.
It all gets a bit Emperors New Clothes where everyone knows they are expected to like it and appreciate it, so all say they do lest they come across like a philistine.
Citizen Kane isn’t all that great…
I decided to watch some classics that I had never seen. Citizen Kane was one and I was very disappointed. Nothing special in my opinion. Another was the Godfather and I thought that brilliant.
Also this wasn't an offhand comment Truss made in an interview, or at a meeting. This was something that she wrote in her book, that survived several rounds of drafting and editing before being committed to print.
My point was more that I believe she was too lazy or stupid to really think about the background to the Rothschild slurs and too focussed on the idea of money being more a lever of power than law and so just grabbed Rothschild off her mental bookshelf and chucked it in there.
There are a lot of people who have knowledge that’s a mile wide and a millimetre thick, who can pull references out in arguments and make themselves feel and look clever, there is that Barb about Stephen Fry that he is “a stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”.
I think we have seen by her bullish and stubborn charges at things that she has an “idea” backed by some “theories” and some “facts” and then keeps going. So again I very much doubt she is remotely antisemitic but just wasn’t remotely mentally inquisitive enough to think about what she wrote and I doubt the editor assigned to the book gave it much thought either.
We could argue all day - at least! - about whether Truss is genuinely an anti-Semite, because there's no way to truly know, is there?
Like Good Queen Bess we should be more concerned about people's actions, rather than trying to discern the nature of their deepest beliefs. And in this case, her actions have reached a bar that precedent has established merits disciplinary action.
I await Sunak's response.
What is the rcord for the number of MPs from a party having the whip removed in one Parliament? The Tories must be getting close here.
I’m sure R4 said this morning there are 7 Tory and 7 Labour at the moment. Considering the relative party sizes if the stat is true it’s surely more embarrassing for Labour?
Or are the Labour ones because SKS is great for getting rid of bad actors and the Tory ones because Rishi is terrible and allowed in lots of bad apples?
I think the numbers are as follows:
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1 Plaid: 1 SNP: 2 (1 subsequently joined Alba) + 1 was suspended and reinstated + 1 was suspended and then left Parliament Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK) + 4 were suspended and reinstated + 6 were suspended and then left Parliament Lab: 7 + 5 were suspended and reinstated
Lowest government approval by PM (Gallup/MORI): Attlee 31% Churchill (51-55) 40% Eden 34% Macmillan: 30% Douglas-Home 36% Wilson (64-70) 17% Heath 22% Wilson (74-76) 27% Callaghan 17% Thatcher 16% Major 8% Blair 22% Brown 16% Cameron 24% May 8% Johnson 14% Truss 11% Sunak 10%
What is the common factor behind those three ratings of 10% and less? I'd suggest party disunity.
I think Sunak and Major was the country was sick to death of the Cons as they were at the fag end of their administrations. But yes that also meant party disunity, as it did for May.
Why should he deny it? If they are going to do it then an ASCOT movement is by far the best and probably cheapest way to do it.
Rock Apes can secure the aerodrome and will be delighted to pistol whip any protesting malcontents while the crew can be threatened with MCTC - Colchester if they blab to the Guardian/BBC.
I recall from the discussion the other week that you said that the pilots were sort of rebadged with Flight Lieut's wings and stripes, but what about the cabin staff? Are they serving RAF types too?
Cabin crew are regular RAF. Yoke Actuators are a combination of RAF and these weird half-man/half-biscuit RAFR AirTanker wage slaves.
On the Rwandan Extraordinary Renditions I imagine they will be supplemented by security and medics.
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
LOL
Could be a pb competition. Sum up magnificent works of art in blithe, uninformed, yet pithy soundbites.
Ignorance is nothing to be proud of. Hang your head that you are not going to subject yourself to this masterpiece.
Finnegan's Wake, however...
It's more the "take that you sneering metropolitan elite! I'm not falling for your snakeoil. I'm brave and different for not liking...Ulysses" attitude that is a little sad.
There is a very depressing streak in UK society, from top to bottom, that someone is "too clever by half".
Indeed. But they are often right with the criticism: there's often a great deal of snobbery by people who go on about how intelligent they are, or how high their IQ is. Such people are often idiots in some rather obvious ways.
It's a good job we don't have an example of this on PB....
What a bizarre line to take. You continue to argue the toss about a book you haven't read and now are becoming abusive towards those who have an opinion on it who might have read it. Weird.
But then again, looking at your posts about other subjects (here's me being abusive now), it is no surprise whatsoever. Becoming hugely angry about something you are completely clueless about.
I think you might be over-reacting a tad to a jokey comment.
But your general reaction is also a piece of evidence towards a post I made earlier...
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
I travel a reasonable bit for business (academic conferences* and meetings that clearly must be done in person )
It varies hugely by airport/country. Some it's bugger all difference, others you can be stood in the non-EU lane waiting for one or two people when the EU lane is open, staffed and with no one waiting. Probably comes down to the bosses' and workers' attitude to Brexit and the Brits (or the wider EU/not EU split, not UK/Brexit-specific).
*online conferences do really suck, generally, unless very short - too long staring at a screen and none of the useful making of contacts and getting together to knock an idea together that later becomes a grant application or collaboration. On the other hand, I'm travelling four hours each way next month to give a ten minute presentation and there's probably little else of interest for me at the conference, so I'd much rather do that online if possible.
I believe Eurostar has fewer trains, fewer passengers, longer queues and check-in times, and higher prices, because of Brexit. Can anyone confirm?
Queues can now be horrendous. Higher prices yes def. Plus zillions of custom posts everywhere. It is no longer a hop-on service which it really was previously. It is a lot more faff/like flying now. Since Brexit.
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
Ulysses is hard going and not for everyone. I would, however, recommend Dubliners, which has some of the most sublimely beautiful prose you’ll ever encounter.
Sounds boring. I'm not particularly interested in fiction anyway, unless it's a very good Thriller, so it having some passages of sublimely beautiful prose doesn't attract me.
It's a bit like The Deerhunter, which people banged on for years was one of the best films ever made and a "must see", whereas I thought it awfully tedious and that the director had disappeared up his own arse.
It all gets a bit Emperors New Clothes where everyone knows they are expected to like it and appreciate it, so all say they do lest they come across like a philistine.
Citizen Kane isn’t all that great…
I decided to watch some classics that I had never seen. Citizen Kane was one and I was very disappointed. Nothing special in my opinion. Another was the Godfather and I thought that brilliant.
But what about Kane compared to other films of its time?
Also this wasn't an offhand comment Truss made in an interview, or at a meeting. This was something that she wrote in her book, that survived several rounds of drafting and editing before being committed to print.
My point was more that I believe she was too lazy or stupid to really think about the background to the Rothschild slurs and too focussed on the idea of money being more a lever of power than law and so just grabbed Rothschild off her mental bookshelf and chucked it in there.
There are a lot of people who have knowledge that’s a mile wide and a millimetre thick, who can pull references out in arguments and make themselves feel and look clever, there is that Barb about Stephen Fry that he is “a stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”.
I think we have seen by her bullish and stubborn charges at things that she has an “idea” backed by some “theories” and some “facts” and then keeps going. So again I very much doubt she is remotely antisemitic but just wasn’t remotely mentally inquisitive enough to think about what she wrote and I doubt the editor assigned to the book gave it much thought either.
We could argue all day - at least! - about whether Truss is genuinely an anti-Semite, because there's no way to truly know, is there?
Like Good Queen Bess we should be more concerned about people's actions, rather than trying to discern the nature of their deepest beliefs. And in this case, her actions have reached a bar that precedent has established merits disciplinary action.
I await Sunak's response.
What is the rcord for the number of MPs from a party having the whip removed in one Parliament? The Tories must be getting close here.
I’m sure R4 said this morning there are 7 Tory and 7 Labour at the moment. Considering the relative party sizes if the stat is true it’s surely more embarrassing for Labour?
Or are the Labour ones because SKS is great for getting rid of bad actors and the Tory ones because Rishi is terrible and allowed in lots of bad apples?
I think the numbers are as follows:
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1 Plaid: 1 SNP: 2 (1 subsequently joined Alba) + 1 was suspended and reinstated + 1 was suspended and then left Parliament Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK) + 4 were suspended and reinstated + 6 were suspended and then left Parliament Lab: 7 + 5 were suspended and reinstated
Reasons, a simplistic analysis:
Criminal charges or complaint: 3 Con, 1 DUP, 1 Lab, 1 PC Financial scandal: 1 Con Sex scandal: 2 Con, 1 Lab Possibly racist comments: 1 Con, 4 Lab (3 Palestine-related) Party arguments: 2 SNP Anti-vax: 1 Con Unspecified complaint: 2 Lab Unauthorised appearance on reality TV: 1 Con
Also this wasn't an offhand comment Truss made in an interview, or at a meeting. This was something that she wrote in her book, that survived several rounds of drafting and editing before being committed to print.
My point was more that I believe she was too lazy or stupid to really think about the background to the Rothschild slurs and too focussed on the idea of money being more a lever of power than law and so just grabbed Rothschild off her mental bookshelf and chucked it in there.
There are a lot of people who have knowledge that’s a mile wide and a millimetre thick, who can pull references out in arguments and make themselves feel and look clever, there is that Barb about Stephen Fry that he is “a stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”.
I think we have seen by her bullish and stubborn charges at things that she has an “idea” backed by some “theories” and some “facts” and then keeps going. So again I very much doubt she is remotely antisemitic but just wasn’t remotely mentally inquisitive enough to think about what she wrote and I doubt the editor assigned to the book gave it much thought either.
We could argue all day - at least! - about whether Truss is genuinely an anti-Semite, because there's no way to truly know, is there?
Like Good Queen Bess we should be more concerned about people's actions, rather than trying to discern the nature of their deepest beliefs. And in this case, her actions have reached a bar that precedent has established merits disciplinary action.
I await Sunak's response.
What is the rcord for the number of MPs from a party having the whip removed in one Parliament? The Tories must be getting close here.
I’m sure R4 said this morning there are 7 Tory and 7 Labour at the moment. Considering the relative party sizes if the stat is true it’s surely more embarrassing for Labour?
Or are the Labour ones because SKS is great for getting rid of bad actors and the Tory ones because Rishi is terrible and allowed in lots of bad apples?
I think the numbers are as follows:
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1 Plaid: 1 SNP: 2 (1 subsequently joined Alba) + 1 was suspended and reinstated + 1 was suspended and then left Parliament Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK) + 4 were suspended and reinstated + 6 were suspended and then left Parliament Lab: 7 + 5 were suspended and reinstated
That's a whip removed rate of: DUP 12.5% Plaid 25% SNP 8.3% CON 5.2% LAB 5.9% OTH 0%
Also this wasn't an offhand comment Truss made in an interview, or at a meeting. This was something that she wrote in her book, that survived several rounds of drafting and editing before being committed to print.
My point was more that I believe she was too lazy or stupid to really think about the background to the Rothschild slurs and too focussed on the idea of money being more a lever of power than law and so just grabbed Rothschild off her mental bookshelf and chucked it in there.
There are a lot of people who have knowledge that’s a mile wide and a millimetre thick, who can pull references out in arguments and make themselves feel and look clever, there is that Barb about Stephen Fry that he is “a stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”.
I think we have seen by her bullish and stubborn charges at things that she has an “idea” backed by some “theories” and some “facts” and then keeps going. So again I very much doubt she is remotely antisemitic but just wasn’t remotely mentally inquisitive enough to think about what she wrote and I doubt the editor assigned to the book gave it much thought either.
We could argue all day - at least! - about whether Truss is genuinely an anti-Semite, because there's no way to truly know, is there?
Like Good Queen Bess we should be more concerned about people's actions, rather than trying to discern the nature of their deepest beliefs. And in this case, her actions have reached a bar that precedent has established merits disciplinary action.
I await Sunak's response.
What is the rcord for the number of MPs from a party having the whip removed in one Parliament? The Tories must be getting close here.
I’m sure R4 said this morning there are 7 Tory and 7 Labour at the moment. Considering the relative party sizes if the stat is true it’s surely more embarrassing for Labour?
Or are the Labour ones because SKS is great for getting rid of bad actors and the Tory ones because Rishi is terrible and allowed in lots of bad apples?
I think the numbers are as follows:
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1 Plaid: 1 SNP: 2 (1 subsequently joined Alba) + 1 was suspended and reinstated + 1 was suspended and then left Parliament Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK) + 4 were suspended and reinstated + 6 were suspended and then left Parliament Lab: 7 + 5 were suspended and reinstated
Correction:
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1 Plaid: 1 SNP: 1 + 2 were suspended and reinstated + 1 was suspended and then left Parliament Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK) + 4 were suspended and reinstated + 6 were suspended and then left Parliament Lab: 7 + 5 were suspended and reinstated
I mean at this stage what PM is going to think if I go to the country in June instead of next year I might lift the result from 40 seats to 58 seats. Equally they aren't going to say why don't we save the country from our own party and give Lab a chance.
Not really worth the effort. My Jan 25 bet is still the one I'd be on.
Based on today's polls they will finish 3rd. Go longer? Maybe 4th. Go even longer? 5th?
Happy for them to do so! We need an election to fix the country, but its already so broken than a further 6 months probably won't make that big a difference. And if it consigns todays Tory party to the bin, its probably pain we can tolerate.
Ypi is a great writer. Her book "Free: Coming of Age at the End of History", an autobiography about growing up in Albania as communism fell, but also a reflection on political philosophy, is great. Highly recommended.
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
Ulysses is hard going and not for everyone. I would, however, recommend Dubliners, which has some of the most sublimely beautiful prose you’ll ever encounter.
Sounds boring. I'm not particularly interested in fiction anyway, unless it's a very good Thriller, so it having some passages of sublimely beautiful prose doesn't attract me.
It's a bit like The Deerhunter, which people banged on for years was one of the best films ever made and a "must see", whereas I thought it awfully tedious and that the director had disappeared up his own arse.
It all gets a bit Emperors New Clothes where everyone knows they are expected to like it and appreciate it, so all say they do lest they come across like a philistine.
Citizen Kane isn’t all that great…
I decided to watch some classics that I had never seen. Citizen Kane was one and I was very disappointed. Nothing special in my opinion. Another was the Godfather and I thought that brilliant.
But what about Kane compared to other films of its time?
Citizen Kane (1941) is really boring. Not worth watching, unless it's maybe important in the history of cinema for some reason and you are interested in that.
The Lady Eve is a film from 1941 that is still entertaining. Or The Maltese Falcon if you don't want a comedy.
Ypi is a great writer. Her book "Free: Coming of Age at the End of History", an autobiography about growing up in Albania as communism fell, but also a reflection on political philosophy, is great. Highly recommended.
The Spectator, on the other hand, is just shit.
I've never read the Spectator, but I'm sure it's shit.
Interesting number from the Ipsos poll. 47% still say they may change their mind before they vote.
This isn't unusual before the final weeks of an election campaign, but it doesn't quite tally with the view often expressed that the country has made up it's mind to give the Tories the heave. The election campaign itself could yet make a difference. One way. Or the other.
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
Ulysses is hard going and not for everyone. I would, however, recommend Dubliners, which has some of the most sublimely beautiful prose you’ll ever encounter.
Sounds boring. I'm not particularly interested in fiction anyway, unless it's a very good Thriller, so it having some passages of sublimely beautiful prose doesn't attract me.
It's a bit like The Deerhunter, which people banged on for years was one of the best films ever made and a "must see", whereas I thought it awfully tedious and that the director had disappeared up his own arse.
It all gets a bit Emperors New Clothes where everyone knows they are expected to like it and appreciate it, so all say they do lest they come across like a philistine.
Citizen Kane isn’t all that great…
I decided to watch some classics that I had never seen. Citizen Kane was one and I was very disappointed. Nothing special in my opinion. Another was the Godfather and I thought that brilliant.
But what about Kane compared to other films of its time?
Citizen Kane (1941) is really boring. Not worth watching, unless it's maybe important in the history of cinema for some reason and you are interested in that.
The Lady Eve is a film from 1941 that is still entertaining. Or The Maltese Falcon if you don't want a comedy.
I heartily disagree. Citizen Kane stands up very well. You can see why it is lauded as the greatest film ever. There are directorial choices within it that don't seem as revolutionary now only because they were so copied, but it's still a great watch.
Lowest government approval by PM (Gallup/MORI): Attlee 31% Churchill (51-55) 40% Eden 34% Macmillan: 30% Douglas-Home 36% Wilson (64-70) 17% Heath 22% Wilson (74-76) 27% Callaghan 17% Thatcher 16% Major 8% Blair 22% Brown 16% Cameron 24% May 8% Johnson 14% Truss 11% Sunak 10%
What is the common factor behind those three ratings of 10% and less? I'd suggest party disunity.
The common factor is that they're all post-twitter/X. Cameron got out before it became so ubiquitous.
Surely there comes a time when the Torys will stop this, I cannot see by hanging on till October/November, the Tory share of the vote will improve, what are they waiting for 15% in the polls. For the general wellbeing of everyone, including themselves call an election.
I get the impression most Tories don't really believe they could actually fall behind ReformUK in the polls, which could be a dangerous assumption.
Lowest government approval by PM (Gallup/MORI): Attlee 31% Churchill (51-55) 40% Eden 34% Macmillan: 30% Douglas-Home 36% Wilson (64-70) 17% Heath 22% Wilson (74-76) 27% Callaghan 17% Thatcher 16% Major 8% Blair 22% Brown 16% Cameron 24% May 8% Johnson 14% Truss 11% Sunak 10%
What is the common factor behind those three ratings of 10% and less? I'd suggest party disunity.
The common factor is that they're all post-twitter/X. Cameron got out before it became so ubiquitous.
Ypi is a great writer. Her book "Free: Coming of Age at the End of History", an autobiography about growing up in Albania as communism fell, but also a reflection on political philosophy, is great. Highly recommended.
The Spectator, on the other hand, is just shit.
I've never read the Spectator, but I'm sure it's shit.
The Spectator is shit in the same way as the Guardian is shit.
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
I travel a reasonable bit for business (academic conferences* and meetings that clearly must be done in person )
It varies hugely by airport/country. Some it's bugger all difference, others you can be stood in the non-EU lane waiting for one or two people when the EU lane is open, staffed and with no one waiting. Probably comes down to the bosses' and workers' attitude to Brexit and the Brits (or the wider EU/not EU split, not UK/Brexit-specific).
*online conferences do really suck, generally, unless very short - too long staring at a screen and none of the useful making of contacts and getting together to knock an idea together that later becomes a grant application or collaboration. On the other hand, I'm travelling four hours each way next month to give a ten minute presentation and there's probably little else of interest for me at the conference, so I'd much rather do that online if possible.
I believe Eurostar has fewer trains, fewer passengers, longer queues and check-in times, and higher prices, because of Brexit. Can anyone confirm?
As with all Brexit issues Scott can confirm it is most definitely the fault of Brexit and the StillWater/TurboTubbs duo can confirm it is most definitely not the fault of Brexit. These insights are always very educational and balanced.
Surely there comes a time when the Torys will stop this, I cannot see by hanging on till October/November, the Tory share of the vote will improve, what are they waiting for 15% in the polls. For the general wellbeing of everyone, including themselves call an election.
I get the impression most Tories don't really believe they could actually fall behind ReformUK in the polls, which could be a dangerous assumption.
Well that is a self-fulfilling safety valve.
Tory and Reform votes are from the same pool. So some would presumably just not switch to Reform.
Lowest government approval by PM (Gallup/MORI): Attlee 31% Churchill (51-55) 40% Eden 34% Macmillan: 30% Douglas-Home 36% Wilson (64-70) 17% Heath 22% Wilson (74-76) 27% Callaghan 17% Thatcher 16% Major 8% Blair 22% Brown 16% Cameron 24% May 8% Johnson 14% Truss 11% Sunak 10%
What is the common factor behind those three ratings of 10% and less? I'd suggest party disunity.
The common factor is that they're all post-twitter/X. Cameron got out before it became so ubiquitous.
Um, Major?
Sorry I misread the comment. With the exception of Major, the last four PMs in a row have have worse ratings than any other PM on the list.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
I travel a reasonable bit for business (academic conferences* and meetings that clearly must be done in person )
It varies hugely by airport/country. Some it's bugger all difference, others you can be stood in the non-EU lane waiting for one or two people when the EU lane is open, staffed and with no one waiting. Probably comes down to the bosses' and workers' attitude to Brexit and the Brits (or the wider EU/not EU split, not UK/Brexit-specific).
*online conferences do really suck, generally, unless very short - too long staring at a screen and none of the useful making of contacts and getting together to knock an idea together that later becomes a grant application or collaboration. On the other hand, I'm travelling four hours each way next month to give a ten minute presentation and there's probably little else of interest for me at the conference, so I'd much rather do that online if possible.
I believe Eurostar has fewer trains, fewer passengers, longer queues and check-in times, and higher prices, because of Brexit. Can anyone confirm?
As with all Brexit issues Scott can confirm it is most definitely the fault of Brexit and the StillWater/TurboTubbs duo can confirm it is most definitely not the fault of Brexit. These insights are always very educational and balanced.
Fewer trains and fewer passengers strike me as symptomatic of a reduction in business travel with tech alternatives having improved. Longer queues and check-in times almost certainly Brexit related - but one of my wife's trips abroad was on Eurostar, where contrary to what she had been warned, she queued for about 10 minutes. I last went on Eurostar back in 1999 so I can't say how it compares with any accuracy! Higher prices - well, that's true of everything.
General rule of thumb is that if you're going to go to Europe it's the French border where they're most likely to be playing silly buggers. This was also true before Brexit but Brexit has given them more opportunities.
Ypi is a great writer. Her book "Free: Coming of Age at the End of History", an autobiography about growing up in Albania as communism fell, but also a reflection on political philosophy, is great. Highly recommended.
The Spectator, on the other hand, is just shit.
Was never a great reader of the Spectator but my impression was that they kept the pervs & racist creeps (eg Taki) around as a bit of circus act, but now they seem to inform the whole Speccie ethos.
Also this wasn't an offhand comment Truss made in an interview, or at a meeting. This was something that she wrote in her book, that survived several rounds of drafting and editing before being committed to print.
My point was more that I believe she was too lazy or stupid to really think about the background to the Rothschild slurs and too focussed on the idea of money being more a lever of power than law and so just grabbed Rothschild off her mental bookshelf and chucked it in there.
There are a lot of people who have knowledge that’s a mile wide and a millimetre thick, who can pull references out in arguments and make themselves feel and look clever, there is that Barb about Stephen Fry that he is “a stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”.
I think we have seen by her bullish and stubborn charges at things that she has an “idea” backed by some “theories” and some “facts” and then keeps going. So again I very much doubt she is remotely antisemitic but just wasn’t remotely mentally inquisitive enough to think about what she wrote and I doubt the editor assigned to the book gave it much thought either.
We could argue all day - at least! - about whether Truss is genuinely an anti-Semite, because there's no way to truly know, is there?
Like Good Queen Bess we should be more concerned about people's actions, rather than trying to discern the nature of their deepest beliefs. And in this case, her actions have reached a bar that precedent has established merits disciplinary action.
I await Sunak's response.
What is the rcord for the number of MPs from a party having the whip removed in one Parliament? The Tories must be getting close here.
I’m sure R4 said this morning there are 7 Tory and 7 Labour at the moment. Considering the relative party sizes if the stat is true it’s surely more embarrassing for Labour?
Or are the Labour ones because SKS is great for getting rid of bad actors and the Tory ones because Rishi is terrible and allowed in lots of bad apples?
I think the numbers are as follows:
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1 Plaid: 1 SNP: 2 (1 subsequently joined Alba) + 1 was suspended and reinstated + 1 was suspended and then left Parliament Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK) + 4 were suspended and reinstated + 6 were suspended and then left Parliament Lab: 7 + 5 were suspended and reinstated
Reasons, a simplistic analysis:
Criminal charges or complaint: 3 Con, 1 DUP, 1 Lab, 1 PC Financial scandal: 1 Con Sex scandal: 2 Con, 1 Lab Possibly racist comments: 1 Con, 4 Lab (3 Palestine-related) Party arguments: 2 SNP Anti-vax: 1 Con Unspecified complaint: 2 Lab Unauthorised appearance on reality TV: 1 Con
Lib Dems still to get off the mark this parliament.
Highlight of the morning has been watching the post office enquiry live. Rodric Williams is squirming in his chair and the inquiry’s lawyer is tearing him to shreds."
Also this wasn't an offhand comment Truss made in an interview, or at a meeting. This was something that she wrote in her book, that survived several rounds of drafting and editing before being committed to print.
My point was more that I believe she was too lazy or stupid to really think about the background to the Rothschild slurs and too focussed on the idea of money being more a lever of power than law and so just grabbed Rothschild off her mental bookshelf and chucked it in there.
There are a lot of people who have knowledge that’s a mile wide and a millimetre thick, who can pull references out in arguments and make themselves feel and look clever, there is that Barb about Stephen Fry that he is “a stupid person’s idea of an intelligent person”.
I think we have seen by her bullish and stubborn charges at things that she has an “idea” backed by some “theories” and some “facts” and then keeps going. So again I very much doubt she is remotely antisemitic but just wasn’t remotely mentally inquisitive enough to think about what she wrote and I doubt the editor assigned to the book gave it much thought either.
We could argue all day - at least! - about whether Truss is genuinely an anti-Semite, because there's no way to truly know, is there?
Like Good Queen Bess we should be more concerned about people's actions, rather than trying to discern the nature of their deepest beliefs. And in this case, her actions have reached a bar that precedent has established merits disciplinary action.
I await Sunak's response.
What is the rcord for the number of MPs from a party having the whip removed in one Parliament? The Tories must be getting close here.
I’m sure R4 said this morning there are 7 Tory and 7 Labour at the moment. Considering the relative party sizes if the stat is true it’s surely more embarrassing for Labour?
Or are the Labour ones because SKS is great for getting rid of bad actors and the Tory ones because Rishi is terrible and allowed in lots of bad apples?
I think the numbers are as follows:
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1 Plaid: 1 SNP: 2 (1 subsequently joined Alba) + 1 was suspended and reinstated + 1 was suspended and then left Parliament Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK) + 4 were suspended and reinstated + 6 were suspended and then left Parliament Lab: 7 + 5 were suspended and reinstated
Reasons, a simplistic analysis:
Criminal charges or complaint: 3 Con, 1 DUP, 1 Lab, 1 PC Financial scandal: 1 Con Sex scandal: 2 Con, 1 Lab Possibly racist comments: 1 Con, 4 Lab (3 Palestine-related) Party arguments: 2 SNP Anti-vax: 1 Con Unspecified complaint: 2 Lab Unauthorised appearance on reality TV: 1 Con
Lib Dems still to get off the mark this parliament.
Come on yellows, you can do better than that!
The last time the LibDems suspended the whip in the Commons was David Ward in July 2013 for questioning the right of Israel to exist.
Ypi is a great writer. Her book "Free: Coming of Age at the End of History", an autobiography about growing up in Albania as communism fell, but also a reflection on political philosophy, is great. Highly recommended.
The Spectator, on the other hand, is just shit.
Was never a great reader of the Spectator but my impression was that they kept the pervs & racist creeps (eg Taki) around as a bit of circus act, but now they seem to inform the whole Speccie ethos.
I gave up reading it for precisely this reason. I couldn't take one more Charles Moore thought piece.
As an aside, this morning I am reminded once again how far ahead in content and quality France 24 is compared to any of the UK news offerings. Sky with the self inflated Kay Burley is unwatchable, BBC Breakfast is turgid and GB news is just weird. France 24 cover more topics in more detail and from a far more international perspective in 10 minutes than any UK news channel does in half a day.
I think the comparator for France 24 has to be BBC World Service, surely?
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
Ulysses is hard going and not for everyone. I would, however, recommend Dubliners, which has some of the most sublimely beautiful prose you’ll ever encounter.
Sounds boring. I'm not particularly interested in fiction anyway, unless it's a very good Thriller, so it having some passages of sublimely beautiful prose doesn't attract me.
It's a bit like The Deerhunter, which people banged on for years was one of the best films ever made and a "must see", whereas I thought it awfully tedious and that the director had disappeared up his own arse.
It all gets a bit Emperors New Clothes where everyone knows they are expected to like it and appreciate it, so all say they do lest they come across like a philistine.
Citizen Kane isn’t all that great…
I decided to watch some classics that I had never seen. Citizen Kane was one and I was very disappointed. Nothing special in my opinion. Another was the Godfather and I thought that brilliant.
But what about Kane compared to other films of its time?
If you look at 1941, absolutely... How Green was my Valley ? Not for nothing is is seen to be so influential for directorial technique.
But just a year later: Casablanca; Now Voyager; Saboteur and quite a number of others which stand the test of time.
I read the plot summary of James Joyce's Ulysses on Wiki last night and I thought it sounded deranged.
I've little to no interest in reading the rambling monologues of three individuals who happen to bumble around Dublin on one day in 1904, even if it does contain a handful of great quotes.
It's one book I'm confident I'll never read, and I don't think my life will be any the worse for it.
Ulysses is hard going and not for everyone. I would, however, recommend Dubliners, which has some of the most sublimely beautiful prose you’ll ever encounter.
Sounds boring. I'm not particularly interested in fiction anyway, unless it's a very good Thriller, so it having some passages of sublimely beautiful prose doesn't attract me.
It's a bit like The Deerhunter, which people banged on for years was one of the best films ever made and a "must see", whereas I thought it awfully tedious and that the director had disappeared up his own arse.
It all gets a bit Emperors New Clothes where everyone knows they are expected to like it and appreciate it, so all say they do lest they come across like a philistine.
Citizen Kane isn’t all that great…
I decided to watch some classics that I had never seen. Citizen Kane was one and I was very disappointed. Nothing special in my opinion. Another was the Godfather and I thought that brilliant.
But what about Kane compared to other films of its time?
Citizen Kane (1941) is really boring. Not worth watching, unless it's maybe important in the history of cinema for some reason and you are interested in that.
The Lady Eve is a film from 1941 that is still entertaining. Or The Maltese Falcon if you don't want a comedy.
Entertaining, but they look old fashioned in comparison.
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Klingon, surely
I've always felt the Bible has more than a whiff of Tamarian about it. "Jesus, when he fed the 5000..."
The comments on books reminds me of the time someone pretentiously said something like: "You can only fully understand the bible if you read it in its original Latin."
A comment that was wrong on so many levels...
Incidentally, Naomi Wolf's latest reinvention is as a biblical scholar. She thinks the Bible has been translated all wrong:
Thanks for the link. Bad start, she believes there is such a thing as a 'literal' translation from another language of 2000 years ago to the English of today. From such a primary school start recovery would be a struggle:
"so. I skipped ahead to the New Testament, with a Koine Greek - English side-by-side literal translation"
Is there, in any language, a word or short phrase for “He/she looked at a new area of knowledge. Instead of absorbing the vast amount of existing knowledge, he/she declared that what they didn’t understand was New Knowledge. And so making extremely naive mistakes”?
If not, I hearby and forthwith declare that this shall be known as Pestoing.
“She pestoed Biblical translation”
Lordy. What a thread.
It reminds of Dawkins yanking random verses from random places, and pretending that that plus his assumptions equals a complete picture.
I'd say she's making some mistakes reminiscent of the ones made by Jehovah's Witnesses in their (quite often mis-) translation, starting with ignoring the contemporary context, progressive development of the narrative, and in her case thinking that she is throwing out the Apostle Paul out to find something 'more real' underneath.
Not a shark infested custard I am going swimming in.
As an aside, this morning I am reminded once again how far ahead in content and quality France 24 is compared to any of the UK news offerings. Sky with the self inflated Kay Burley is unwatchable, BBC Breakfast is turgid and GB news is just weird. France 24 cover more topics in more detail and from a far more international perspective in 10 minutes than any UK news channel does in half a day.
I think the comparator for France 24 has to be BBC World Service, surely?
It’s definitely better than BBC World, which is an odd hodgepodge with the occasional good bit, usually the features.
I quite like Sky News, and ITV is OK too. Better in my view than BBC news channel.
With wearying inevitability the shrunken, increasingly beleaguered rump of Brexit true believers stir themselves into action into deny Brexit is making things worse for Britain.
Today it’s access to medicines - a global problem uniquely enhanced and intensified by Brexit. Add it to the ever-growing pile of problems that are clearly made worse thanks to the fantastical lies of the wreckers and their insane project of self-immolation and ideological fervour.
Absolutism will reign. Pearls will be clutched. Stark reality will be denied. Expert research and opinion blithely dismissed.
The reckoning is coming. The omertà will break. The Tories will receive their kicking. Brexit, to paraphrase Carlin, will be shaken off like a dog shakes off a bad case of fleas. Tick tock.
I mean, us bitter Remoaners might at least shut the fuck up if there were any real Brexit benefits that have improved the lives of normal people you could shove in our faces. But there aren’t any, other than some arcane gibbering about sovereignty. Everything is just worse, thanks to the lunatics and their lies.
Actually, there really really are. And quite tangible ones. eg Claude 3 Opus is the best A.I. in existence. It is barely usable in the EU - almost certainly because of restrictive EU laws. It is no problem to use in the UK
If you work in a cognitive job you should be looking at Claude 3 Opus
Not only is this a big, tangible Brexit benefit, it is one which Leavers predicted - Brexit would free us of damaging, restrictive EU laws
I wholly accept that Brexit has not delivered the sunlit uplands Leave campaigners promised (nor has it delivered the hellscape that Remainers threatened). We are in a pickle but we were in the pickling jar long before 2016, the GFC was when it went wrong and no one knows how to fix it
But to revert to your main point. Brexit may be a pile of shite, but yes there are Brexit benefits
With wearying inevitability the shrunken, increasingly beleaguered rump of Brexit true believers stir themselves into action into deny Brexit is making things worse for Britain.
Today it’s access to medicines - a global problem uniquely enhanced and intensified by Brexit. Add it to the ever-growing pile of problems that are clearly made worse thanks to the fantastical lies of the wreckers and their insane project of self-immolation and ideological fervour.
Absolutism will reign. Pearls will be clutched. Stark reality will be denied. Expert research and opinion blithely dismissed.
The reckoning is coming. The omertà will break. The Tories will receive their kicking. Brexit, to paraphrase Carlin, will be shaken off like a dog shakes off a bad case of fleas. Tick tock.
I mean, us bitter Remoaners might at least shut the fuck up if there were any real Brexit benefits that have improved the lives of normal people you could shove in our faces. But there aren’t any, other than some arcane gibbering about sovereignty. Everything is just worse, thanks to the lunatics and their lies.
Actually, there really really are. And quite tangible ones. eg Claude 3 Opus is the best A.I. in existence. It is barely usable in the EU - almost certainly because of restrictive EU laws. It is no problem to use in the UK
If you work in a cognitive job you should be looking at Claude 3 Opus
Not only is this a big, tangible Brexit benefit, it is one which Leavers predicted - Brexit would free us of damaging, restrictive EU laws
I wholly accept that Brexit has not delivered the sunlit uplands Leave campaigners promised (nor has it delivered the hellscape that Remainers threatened). We are in a pickle but we were in the pickling jar long before 2016, the GFC was when it went wrong and no one knows how to fix it
But to revert to your main point. Brexit may be a pile of shite, but yes there are Brexit benefits
I do a fair bit of home brewing. I have been asking it for recipes for banana, raisin and ginger wine. I am quite impressed with the outcome.
What is good is you don't get all the effing pop up ads you get when you normally go on these sites.
Lowest government approval by PM (Gallup/MORI): Attlee 31% Churchill (51-55) 40% Eden 34% Macmillan: 30% Douglas-Home 36% Wilson (64-70) 17% Heath 22% Wilson (74-76) 27% Callaghan 17% Thatcher 16% Major 8% Blair 22% Brown 16% Cameron 24% May 8% Johnson 14% Truss 11% Sunak 10%
We don't like our politicians much and it is getting worse as time goes by. Is it us, them or a bit of both?
With wearying inevitability the shrunken, increasingly beleaguered rump of Brexit true believers stir themselves into action into deny Brexit is making things worse for Britain.
Today it’s access to medicines - a global problem uniquely enhanced and intensified by Brexit. Add it to the ever-growing pile of problems that are clearly made worse thanks to the fantastical lies of the wreckers and their insane project of self-immolation and ideological fervour.
Absolutism will reign. Pearls will be clutched. Stark reality will be denied. Expert research and opinion blithely dismissed.
The reckoning is coming. The omertà will break. The Tories will receive their kicking. Brexit, to paraphrase Carlin, will be shaken off like a dog shakes off a bad case of fleas. Tick tock.
I mean, us bitter Remoaners might at least shut the fuck up if there were any real Brexit benefits that have improved the lives of normal people you could shove in our faces. But there aren’t any, other than some arcane gibbering about sovereignty. Everything is just worse, thanks to the lunatics and their lies.
Actually, there really really are. And quite tangible ones. eg Claude 3 Opus is the best A.I. in existence. It is barely usable in the EU - almost certainly because of restrictive EU laws. It is no problem to use in the UK
If you work in a cognitive job you should be looking at Claude 3 Opus
Not only is this a big, tangible Brexit benefit, it is one which Leavers predicted - Brexit would free us of damaging, restrictive EU laws
I wholly accept that Brexit has not delivered the sunlit uplands Leave campaigners promised (nor has it delivered the hellscape that Remainers threatened). We are in a pickle but we were in the pickling jar long before 2016, the GFC was when it went wrong and no one knows how to fix it
But to revert to your main point. Brexit may be a pile of shite, but yes there are Brexit benefits
I do a fair bit of home brewing. I have been asking it for recipes for banana, raisin and ginger wine. I am quite impressed with the outcome.
What is good is you don't get all the effing pop up ads you get when you normally go on these sites.
This is a real thing and a real issue. For anyone in particular cognitive jobs it’s potentially a massive issue: these AIs are so incredibly useful
Note to Moderator: this is not a post about AI per se, this is to evidence a real Brexit benefit
The EU has shot itself in both legs on A.I., and the UK has a real chance to gain a competitive advantage. However my bet is that Starmer will fuck it all up by signing up for EU laws and we will end up in an even worse position. Subject to asinine EU regulations but with zero influence on their formation
Otherwise I’m travelling at the moment and, like the 2/3rds of other Brits travelling abroad this year, conscious once more of the ceaseless disaster called Brexit.
I do love the ultra generalised whine - it really does suggest you cannot think of anything specific to complain about.
I'm not a regular foreign traveller. I've been abroad once since Brexit, last year; my wife's been three times (this year, last year and the year before). All three times to the EU. The constant rumblings on here and elsewhere had led me to expect it to be frustrating. But on no occasion was it any more difficult than pre-Brexit. My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever. I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
I travel a reasonable bit for business (academic conferences* and meetings that clearly must be done in person )
It varies hugely by airport/country. Some it's bugger all difference, others you can be stood in the non-EU lane waiting for one or two people when the EU lane is open, staffed and with no one waiting. Probably comes down to the bosses' and workers' attitude to Brexit and the Brits (or the wider EU/not EU split, not UK/Brexit-specific).
*online conferences do really suck, generally, unless very short - too long staring at a screen and none of the useful making of contacts and getting together to knock an idea together that later becomes a grant application or collaboration. On the other hand, I'm travelling four hours each way next month to give a ten minute presentation and there's probably little else of interest for me at the conference, so I'd much rather do that online if possible.
I believe Eurostar has fewer trains, fewer passengers, longer queues and check-in times, and higher prices, because of Brexit. Can anyone confirm?
As with all Brexit issues Scott can confirm it is most definitely the fault of Brexit and the StillWater/TurboTubbs duo can confirm it is most definitely not the fault of Brexit. These insights are always very educational and balanced.
Fewer trains and fewer passengers strike me as symptomatic of a reduction in business travel with tech alternatives having improved. Longer queues and check-in times almost certainly Brexit related - but one of my wife's trips abroad was on Eurostar, where contrary to what she had been warned, she queued for about 10 minutes. I last went on Eurostar back in 1999 so I can't say how it compares with any accuracy! Higher prices - well, that's true of everything.
General rule of thumb is that if you're going to go to Europe it's the French border where they're most likely to be playing silly buggers. This was also true before Brexit but Brexit has given them more opportunities.
Passenger numbers seem to be back to pre-pandemic levels:
"Eurostar transported 18.6 million passengers in 2023, a 22% increase over 2022 and marking a return to pre-pandemic passenger levels.
The rail operator, created through the 2022 merger of Eurostar and Thalys, credits strong demand on routes connecting London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Belgian cities for growth.
“Eurostar demonstrated its capability to grow in 2023. Our journey to 30 million passengers by 2030 continues in 2024,” said Eurostar CEO Gwendoline Cazenave."
If they think they can go from 18.6 million journeys now to 30 million in 2030, presumably they are confident border procedures and/or space for them will improve.
(Edit: or they are lumping in the new Thayls routes into that 30m...)
Comments
No matter how much waving pompoms or whining about others will not change that fact.
And I doubt 'the Texas NG has put razor wire across the border' is going to bother many people.
Biden's failure is regrettable, not least because its the one thing that could see Trump win in November.
My argument has always been that foreign travel is not really a regular event for most people, and that having to queue for a bit for that once-every-year-or-two event isn't really the metric on which Brexit should be judged. But my limited experience has been that it has had no impact whatsoever.
I'm sure some people have had horrorshows. But that was also true before Brexit.
1. Poll after poll after poll after poll after poll trending towards Tory ELE
2. Denial after denial after denial that (1) is happening, can happen, will happen
I now there is a general feel of "that can't be true". But such events have become frequent events in our politics. How many polls do we need for some people to contemplate it?
Perhaps the late June election rumour doing the rounds is something we need to seriously consider. Because the longer this goes on the more the trend towards ELE goes on. This one has the Tories finishing the election in 3rd. If they wait, they could finish 4th.
Where we struggle is in the clinical stage - drugs increasingly need hundreds of millions to get them to market.
If you look at the US capital providers you could easily have 30-40 PhDs on staff. There are people who spend their entire careers focusing on IO or Cardio-Renal as *investors*. We just don’t have the scale in the UK (or the whole of Europe) to support that.
Moreover the natural exit for most of these companies is Nasdaq given the depth of capital markets and the willingness of generalists to follow the specialists (of you get Baker Bros, RA or Orbimed to lead a round, for example, you are golden).
So there are fundamental problems which I am not sure are sole able. But it’s to do with comparative advantage and nothing to do with “property” like “everyone knows”.
https://www.reformparty.uk/find-my-candidate
On the poll, I do think there's been a small but detectable further shift to Labour over the last week or two - most polls are showing it. Possibly that simply reflects the intense local election activity - I know the Labour phone bank has notched up over a million callls.
A good figure for the Greens too, which perhaps reflects Donkeys' feeling about Gaza.
He was also notoriously paranoid (though perhaps with more reason than Trump).
Rock Apes can secure the aerodrome and will be delighted to pistol whip any protesting malcontents while the crew can be threatened with MCTC - Colchester if they blab to the Guardian/BBC.
The GOP do not help their case by simply obstructing any legislation on the matter. Along with most other legislation.
Reading too slowly and posting too quickly.
Though should either of you be insulted by the implied comparison ?
1) The task is specific and able to be broken down into small parts (check)
2) There is an overall management who is capable of forcing then to agree on a solution for each piece (check)
They did get lazy and stole wholesale from Tyndale - despite the idea of the KJV being to rid the land of the heresies caused by people reading the Tyndale version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaBQ-o582GA
It varies hugely by airport/country. Some it's bugger all difference, others you can be stood in the non-EU lane waiting for one or two people when the EU lane is open, staffed and with no one waiting. Probably comes down to the bosses' and workers' attitude to Brexit and the Brits (or the wider EU/not EU split, not UK/Brexit-specific).
*online conferences do really suck, generally, unless very short - too long staring at a screen and none of the useful making of contacts and getting together to knock an idea together that later becomes a grant application or collaboration. On the other hand, I'm travelling four hours each way next month to give a ten minute presentation and there's probably little else of interest for me at the conference, so I'd much rather do that online if possible.
(Possibly I mean even more of a refuge)
https://x.com/lea_ypi/status/1780875319735411088?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
"Where we struggle is in the clinical stage - drugs increasingly need hundreds of millions to get them to market." - which is what I was saying. We do the early stuff. But turning it into products on shelves is a long, expensive, risky road.
A few hundred million is chicken feed in the UK financial markets. Deals for that are done hourly. The TRL route needs money - and the desire to spend it in an area.
"If you look at the US capital providers you could easily have 30-40 PhDs on staff" - because they are fired up and interested in investing in the area. If you look at UK banks and investors, what is their focus?
In Ireland, for example, the last election was early because it was the only way to avoid losing a vote of confidence in the Health Secretary (the Health Secretary is now the Taoiseach). The Tories still retain a comfortable majority, and Sunak is not at odds with his MPs on any substantive policy issue that is likely to come to a vote that is so important that it might trigger an election.
The worse things get the more likely it is that the Tories will hang on to the bitter end - even perhaps January 2025.
Though it took me a moment or two to realise who had posted the tweet.
On the Rwandan Extraordinary Renditions I imagine they will be supplemented by security and medics.
Not really worth the effort. My Jan 25 bet is still the one I'd be on.
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1
Plaid: 1
SNP: 2 (1 subsequently joined Alba)
+ 1 was suspended and reinstated
+ 1 was suspended and then left Parliament
Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK)
+ 4 were suspended and reinstated
+ 6 were suspended and then left Parliament
Lab: 7
+ 5 were suspended and reinstated
But your general reaction is also a piece of evidence towards a post I made earlier...
Criminal charges or complaint: 3 Con, 1 DUP, 1 Lab, 1 PC
Financial scandal: 1 Con
Sex scandal: 2 Con, 1 Lab
Possibly racist comments: 1 Con, 4 Lab (3 Palestine-related)
Party arguments: 2 SNP
Anti-vax: 1 Con
Unspecified complaint: 2 Lab
Unauthorised appearance on reality TV: 1 Con
DUP 12.5%
Plaid 25%
SNP 8.3%
CON 5.2%
LAB 5.9%
OTH 0%
Whip removed and still sitting in Parliament:
DUP: 1
Plaid: 1
SNP: 1
+ 2 were suspended and reinstated
+ 1 was suspended and then left Parliament
Con: 9 (1 subsequently joined Reform UK)
+ 4 were suspended and reinstated
+ 6 were suspended and then left Parliament
Lab: 7
+ 5 were suspended and reinstated
Happy for them to do so! We need an election to fix the country, but its already so broken than a further 6 months probably won't make that big a difference. And if it consigns todays Tory party to the bin, its probably pain we can tolerate.
The Spectator, on the other hand, is just shit.
The Lady Eve is a film from 1941 that is still entertaining. Or The Maltese Falcon if you don't want a comedy.
This isn't unusual before the final weeks of an election campaign, but it doesn't quite tally with the view often expressed that the country has made up it's mind to give the Tories the heave. The election campaign itself could yet make a difference. One way. Or the other.
But this Post Office inquiry, whilst not quite a courtroom drama, has been riveting at times.
Tory and Reform votes are from the same pool. So some would presumably just not switch to Reform.
Sunak is more the continuous hiss of a slow puncture.
But the ultimate effect is the same.
General rule of thumb is that if you're going to go to Europe it's the French border where they're most likely to be playing silly buggers. This was also true before Brexit but Brexit has given them more opportunities.
Sunak = MND and the flu at the same time
Come on yellows, you can do better than that!
@cymroglyn
Highlight of the morning has been watching the post office enquiry live. Rodric Williams is squirming in his chair and the inquiry’s lawyer is tearing him to shreds."
https://twitter.com/cymroglyn/status/1780914752920645727
Not for nothing is is seen to be so influential for directorial technique.
But just a year later:
Casablanca; Now Voyager; Saboteur and quite a number of others which stand the test of time.
"A civil litigator and a corporate lawyer.."
2 of Trump’s jurors are lawyers. Would they acquit on a technicality?
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/trump-trial-jury-lawyers-00152839
It reminds of Dawkins yanking random verses from random places, and pretending that that plus his assumptions equals a complete picture.
I'd say she's making some mistakes reminiscent of the ones made by Jehovah's Witnesses in their (quite often mis-) translation, starting with ignoring the contemporary context, progressive development of the narrative, and in her case thinking that she is throwing out the Apostle Paul out to find something 'more real' underneath.
Not a shark infested custard I am going swimming in.
I quite like Sky News, and ITV is OK too. Better in my view than BBC news channel.
If you work in a cognitive job you should be looking at Claude 3 Opus
Not only is this a big, tangible Brexit benefit, it is one which Leavers predicted - Brexit would free us of damaging, restrictive EU laws
I wholly accept that Brexit has not delivered the sunlit uplands Leave campaigners promised (nor has it delivered the hellscape that Remainers threatened). We are in a pickle but we were in the pickling jar long before 2016, the GFC was when it went wrong and no one knows how to fix it
But to revert to your main point. Brexit may be a pile of shite, but yes there are Brexit benefits
What is good is you don't get all the effing pop up ads you get when you normally go on these sites.
Although I have to list my profession as banker these days.
My bank card expires in January 2025.
I'm not saying Santander knows the date of the next election, but I reckon its not a coincidence.......
This is a real thing and a real issue. For anyone in particular cognitive jobs it’s potentially a massive issue: these AIs are so incredibly useful
Note to Moderator: this is not a post about AI per se, this is to evidence a real Brexit benefit
The EU has shot itself in both legs on A.I., and the UK has a real chance to gain a competitive advantage. However my bet is that Starmer will fuck it all up by signing up for EU laws and we will end up in an even worse position. Subject to asinine EU regulations but with zero influence on their formation
"Eurostar transported 18.6 million passengers in 2023, a 22% increase over 2022 and marking a return to pre-pandemic passenger levels.
The rail operator, created through the 2022 merger of Eurostar and Thalys, credits strong demand on routes connecting London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Belgian cities for growth.
“Eurostar demonstrated its capability to grow in 2023. Our journey to 30 million passengers by 2030 continues in 2024,” said Eurostar CEO Gwendoline Cazenave."
If they think they can go from 18.6 million journeys now to 30 million in 2030, presumably they are confident border procedures and/or space for them will improve.
(Edit: or they are lumping in the new Thayls routes into that 30m...)