Most of us older than 2 would say that unironically. Screwing the economy of the largest country in Europe is only a benefit to Britain in the minds of those whose preferred reading matter remains Commando Comics.
The German idiocy of relying on Russian gas and abolishing nuclear has pushed their energy costs up thus destroying their industrial sector. We could, and should, have avoided that while avoiding our own native idiocy of Brexit.
It's more that the story of German businesses investing in the German economy slowly becoming a bit of a myth.
Increasingly, investment moved further East - when Ukraine was invaded, there were massive problems for industry in Germany due to components not arriving.
It's become quite noticeable, in the last few years, that for kitchen white goods (for example), some lines are not made in Germany and often have very poor quality.
The mad way in which the German car industry has approached electrification hasn't helped. Instead of taking it as a chance to explore new markets...
China is doing to Germany what Japan did to Britain (cf motorbikes)
Britain did it to itself on motorcycles. The Italian industry weathered the Japanese onslaught of the 70s and 80s by retreating to the top end of the market where margins were high. The sole German and US manufacturers (BMW and HD) also maintained healthy volumes right through that period partly on the sheer strength of the brands.
The British industry was badly managed, fragmented and horribly undercapitalised so they couldn't develop products of quality and relevance. Then Thatcher turned the pound into a petrocurrency in the 80s which killed all export potential.
Triumph are back now though and leaking slightly less oil than before.
Made in Thailand though, with the UK only doing R and D and customs work.
Bert Hopwoods book of how complacent and incompetent management turned a UK world beating industry into extinction in 2 decades is quite the eye opener.
Most of us older than 2 would say that unironically. Screwing the economy of the largest country in Europe is only a benefit to Britain in the minds of those whose preferred reading matter remains Commando Comics.
The German idiocy of relying on Russian gas and abolishing nuclear has pushed their energy costs up thus destroying their industrial sector. We could, and should, have avoided that while avoiding our own native idiocy of Brexit.
It's more that the story of German businesses investing in the German economy slowly becoming a bit of a myth.
Increasingly, investment moved further East - when Ukraine was invaded, there were massive problems for industry in Germany due to components not arriving.
It's become quite noticeable, in the last few years, that for kitchen white goods (for example), some lines are not made in Germany and often have very poor quality.
The mad way in which the German car industry has approached electrification hasn't helped. Instead of taking it as a chance to explore new markets...
China is doing to Germany what Japan did to Britain (cf motorbikes)
Britain did it to itself on motorcycles. The Italian industry weathered the Japanese onslaught of the 70s and 80s by retreating to the top end of the market where margins were high. The sole German and US manufacturers (BMW and HD) also maintained healthy volumes right through that period partly on the sheer strength of the brands.
The British industry was badly managed, fragmented and horribly undercapitalised so they couldn't develop products of quality and relevance. Then Thatcher turned the pound into a petrocurrency in the 80s which killed all export potential.
Triumph are back now though and leaking slightly less oil than before.
Made in Thailand though, with the UK only doing R and D and customs work.
Bert Hopwoods book of how complacent and incompetent management turned a UK world beating industry into extinction in 2 decades is quite the eye opener.
The Hong Kong Police have released footage of an exceptionally satisfying takedown of 5 men attempting to rob a jewelry store. Apparently the police had a tip-off and so arrived on the scene about 20 seconds into the robbery.
The way people vote in local elections is a poor guide to how they'll vote in general elections. But is there precedent (is it in fact even normal) for such a large reversal as would be required for Labour to win Bristol Central.
In last week's election in wards comprising Bristol Central: Green - 40,281 votes (63%) Labour - 17,100 votes (26.5%) Lib Dems 3k Cons 3.5k
Historically, the Lib Dems have run loads of Councils where they weren't even second in national elections.
It's a good result for the Greens in Bristol, certainly. But I remain sceptical.
My favourite example of this is Watford. The Lib Dem have won the Mayoral election every time it has happened since the post was created in 2002, the closest it's ever been is a 15% lead. They've run the council since 2003 (often with significant majorities). But in 2019, despite having a massive majority of councillors and public vote, and the Mayor re-elected with a massive majority in 2018 too, they came a pretty distant third.
Fun Fact: My first ever political bet was on Watford in 2010.
The electoral areas aren’t the same, and they did get exceptionally close in 2010
In terms of the LDs, the underlying context to all this is that they are currently averaging 10% or less in national opinion polls, that is about 2% behind their GE 2019 result and are even slipping back on the GE 2019 result in the R&W Blue Wall seats which include a lot where have been polling much better. So in GE opinion polling they continue to do very poorly at the same time as polling decently in local elections.
Another reason not to read too into local election results, to add to those already made, is that turnout in local elections is in the ball park of half that in general elections. So you need to take into account both the matter of people who do vote in local elections voting differently in the tactical context of general elections and also the question of how people who vote in general elections only choose to vote.
A UK firm developing artificial intelligence (AI) tech to power self-driving cars has raised $1.05bn (£840m) in funding. Microsoft and leading chip-maker, Nvidia, are among the companies investing in Wayve's latest funding round, led by investment firm SoftBank.
It is the largest known investment in an AI company in Europe to date.
Wayve says the funding will allow it to help build the autonomous cars of the future.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it "anchors the UK’s position as an AI superpower". "The fact that a homegrown, British company has secured the biggest investment yet in a UK AI start-up is a testament to our leadership in this industry", he said.
There was a good interview with the boss this morning. He was saying that they got loads of support in uk at start-up level but now they need to get it from mainly US sources which is annoying. The interviewer was incredulous when boss explained that he was being driven around London effectively by AI just yesterday and that the lady from Peugeot was wrong to say self driving was such a long way off because AI is developing so quickly all old ideas of development pace are out the window.
That funding problem should go straight to Rachel Reeves' inbox.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
A UK firm developing artificial intelligence (AI) tech to power self-driving cars has raised $1.05bn (£840m) in funding. Microsoft and leading chip-maker, Nvidia, are among the companies investing in Wayve's latest funding round, led by investment firm SoftBank.
It is the largest known investment in an AI company in Europe to date.
Wayve says the funding will allow it to help build the autonomous cars of the future.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it "anchors the UK’s position as an AI superpower". "The fact that a homegrown, British company has secured the biggest investment yet in a UK AI start-up is a testament to our leadership in this industry", he said.
There was a good interview with the boss this morning. He was saying that they got loads of support in uk at start-up level but now they need to get it from mainly US sources which is annoying. The interviewer was incredulous when boss explained that he was being driven around London effectively by AI just yesterday and that the lady from Peugeot was wrong to say self driving was such a long way off because AI is developing so quickly all old ideas of development pace are out the window.
The way people vote in local elections is a poor guide to how they'll vote in general elections. But is there precedent (is it in fact even normal) for such a large reversal as would be required for Labour to win Bristol Central.
In last week's election in wards comprising Bristol Central: Green - 40,281 votes (63%) Labour - 17,100 votes (26.5%) Lib Dems 3k Cons 3.5k
Historically, the Lib Dems have run loads of Councils where they weren't even second in national elections.
It's a good result for the Greens in Bristol, certainly. But I remain sceptical.
My favourite example of this is Watford. The Lib Dem have won the Mayoral election every time it has happened since the post was created in 2002, the closest it's ever been is a 15% lead. They've run the council since 2003 (often with significant majorities). But in 2019, despite having a massive majority of councillors and public vote, and the Mayor re-elected with a massive majority in 2018 too, they came a pretty distant third.
Fun Fact: My first ever political bet was on Watford in 2010.
The electoral areas aren’t the same, and they did get exceptionally close in 2010
That's true, though they are fairly close. The boundaries are Watford District Council plus 5 wards of Three Rivers District Council, right? And the point still stands: In the 2019 locals the Lib Dems won all but one of the Three Rivers wards in the seat!
The boundaries are different this time.
All the wards in Watford district are in Watford constituency, along with Bushey North ward from Hertsmere district (no election this year).
The total local votes in Watford on May 2nd were: LD 11,243 Lab 6,775 Con 3,612 Reform 1,113 Grn 239 TUSC 204 Ind 68 Heritage 65
OK I am dim, but can someone ELI5 what the point of Berry doing this was?
Get more votes using her higher pubic profile. Then quit the job, so the next Green on the list gets the job.
Using her coattails to get a Green into the assembly.
The problem is that Garbett was fourth on the list - they skipped over Zack Polanski, who should have been next in line.
I'm not sure Berry had that much higher a profile, however. Garbett was their Mayoral candidate, so her name was widely promoted during the campaign, and it was she who popped up on the local news. I don't think I spotted Berry being mentioned at all.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
OK I am dim, but can someone ELI5 what the point of Berry doing this was?
Get more votes using her higher pubic profile. Then quit the job, so the next Green on the list gets the job.
Using her coattails to get a Green into the assembly.
The problem is that Garbett was fourth on the list - they skipped over Zack Polanski, who should have been next in line.
I'm not sure Berry had that much higher a profile, however. Garbett was their Mayoral candidate, so her name was widely promoted during the campaign, and it was she who popped up on the local news. I don't think I spotted Berry being mentioned at all.
They didn't "skip over" Polanski - they got three list members and he was one of them.
Berry had a fair amount of coverage in the campaign as their top list candidate (although it's relative - they are a smaller party and the Assembly elections are not the big show in the Mayoral election year). But of course she never was their top list candidate, and had already decided to stand down, so it was a bit of a con job.
Those interested in a possible forced adoptions scandal that could make the Post Office scandal seem small potatoes might like to know that the jury at the Gordon and Marten trial at the Old Bailey has today begin its sixth day of deliberations.
Britain still forcibly adopts babies at birth in large numbers, when other countries mostly stopped decades ago. Yes, thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed in this country, although social workers if pushed on the point will pull hard faces and say "What do you mean? You're an ignorant loony who probably teams up with other loonies on Facebook and supports FGM. That would be eugenics. 'Unsuited to parenting' is the term we professionals use. These dirty women are free to have as many children as they like. They just can't keep 'em."
The trial will go down in English legal history, because jurors asked more than 150 questions of witnesses. That probably works out at around one question every ~20 minutes.
My guess would be there are one or two SS lovers on the jury, possibly oblivious to how being so unusually pushy must have pissed their fellow jurors off something rotten.
(Never mind how they must have pissed all the lawyers off too, including the judge. Counsel must have felt they could hardly get a word in edgeways, or pursue a line of questioning, without some berk interrupting them. And I write as a strong supporter of jury trials.)
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Those interested in a possible forced adoptions scandal that could make the Post Office scandal seem small potatoes might like to know that the jury at the Gordon and Marten trial at the Old Bailey has today begin its sixth day of deliberations.
Britain still forcibly adopts babies at birth in large numbers, when other countries mostly stopped decades ago. Yes, thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed in this country, although social workers if pushed on the point will pull hard faces and say "What do you mean? That would be eugenics. 'Unsuited to parenting' is the term we use, actually. These dirty women can have as many children as they like. They just can't keep 'em."
The trial will go down in English legal history, because jurors asked more than 150 questions of witnesses. That probably works out at around one question every ~20 minutes.
My guess would be there are one or two SS lovers on the jury, possibly oblivious to how being so unusually pushy must have pissed their fellow jurors off something rotten. (Never mind how they must have pissed all the lawyers off, including the judge. Counsel must have felt they could hardly get a word in edgeways, or pursue a line of questioning, without some berk interrupting them. And I write as a strong supporter of jury trials.)
OK I am dim, but can someone ELI5 what the point of Berry doing this was?
Berry is reasonably well known and reasonably popular in London, and with her heading the list, not only is there more of a ballot paper draw, but she got to front all the media and interviews for the campaign - people might have seen her on TV or heard the radio and been attracted to vote Green on the back of it, and now find that Berry isn’t representing their vote at all, as she’s b***ered off.
Doubtless it was a nice little trainer for her, for the oncoming GE, but as far as London voters are concerned, it was a premeditated con trick.
I assume this was the idea, but I'm really unconvinced a meaningful number of voters switched because her name was 1st and not 5th on the Green Assembly List Ballot. She could have done media from any spot on the list, surely?
People down list don't normally get media slots. They can try, but it isn't terribly realistic for the 6th person on the Green list to come on and talk about what they'll do if elected to City Hall, because they won't be. Particularly for Berry, as the question she'd then have been asked is "why are you quitting?" as she effectively would have been if down list that far.
Also query how Greens elect their list - presumably membership vote and she topped the list (having misled the membership about her plans too).
Very good. I’d still like to know who’s innocently buying paintings from online marketplaces, and expecting them to be anywhere close to genuine?
If you’re buying a fancy painting, you’ll be buying it from a reputable dealer or auction house, whom you expect to have meticulously researched and documented the piece and its provenance, in exchange for the massive commission they’ll be earning on the sale.
Those interested in a possible forced adoptions scandal that could make the Post Office scandal seem small potatoes might like to know that the jury at the Gordon and Marten trial at the Old Bailey has today begin its sixth day of deliberations.
Britain still forcibly adopts babies at birth in large numbers, when other countries mostly stopped decades ago. Yes, thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed in this country, although social workers if pushed on the point will pull hard faces and say "What do you mean? That would be eugenics. 'Unsuited to parenting' is the term we use, actually. These dirty women can have as many children as they like. They just can't keep 'em."
The trial will go down in English legal history, because jurors asked more than 150 questions of witnesses. That probably works out at around one question every ~20 minutes.
My guess would be there are one or two SS lovers on the jury, possibly oblivious to how being so unusually pushy must have pissed their fellow jurors off something rotten. (Never mind how they must have pissed all the lawyers off, including the judge. Counsel must have felt they could hardly get a word in edgeways, or pursue a line of questioning, without some berk interrupting them. And I write as a strong supporter of jury trials.)
Cannot comment on this case, as its ongoing. but there are all too many shit parents out there. As the father of a 15 month old son I am horrified by the suffering that parents can inflict on defenceless children. Abhorrent behaviour.
Social services will come into contact with many of these people - is it any wonder that they try to do the best for children they perceive to be at risk? Just yesterday saw the suggestion that 1 in 5 children has experienced domestic abuse in the last year.
A UK firm developing artificial intelligence (AI) tech to power self-driving cars has raised $1.05bn (£840m) in funding. Microsoft and leading chip-maker, Nvidia, are among the companies investing in Wayve's latest funding round, led by investment firm SoftBank.
It is the largest known investment in an AI company in Europe to date.
Wayve says the funding will allow it to help build the autonomous cars of the future.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said it "anchors the UK’s position as an AI superpower". "The fact that a homegrown, British company has secured the biggest investment yet in a UK AI start-up is a testament to our leadership in this industry", he said.
There was a good interview with the boss this morning. He was saying that they got loads of support in uk at start-up level but now they need to get it from mainly US sources which is annoying. The interviewer was incredulous when boss explained that he was being driven around London effectively by AI just yesterday and that the lady from Peugeot was wrong to say self driving was such a long way off because AI is developing so quickly all old ideas of development pace are out the window.
The discount in multipliers between the Techmark and NASDAQ indices is a major problem in building mid to larger tech companies in this country. This seems to be an example. The government focussing on this might be a better use of its time.
Nice to see my local MP featured on a pb thread header.
First major policy tweet by Richard Parker, the new West Midlands mayor, naturally calls for a Gazan ceasefire and the Rafah offensive not to go ahead.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Nice to see my local MP featured on a pb thread header.
First major policy tweet by Richard Parker, the new West Midlands mayor, naturally calls for a Gazan ceasefire and the Rafah offensive not to go ahead.
OK I am dim, but can someone ELI5 what the point of Berry doing this was?
Berry is reasonably well known and reasonably popular in London, and with her heading the list, not only is there more of a ballot paper draw, but she got to front all the media and interviews for the campaign - people might have seen her on TV or heard the radio and been attracted to vote Green on the back of it, and now find that Berry isn’t representing their vote at all, as she’s b***ered off.
Doubtless it was a nice little trainer for her, for the oncoming GE, but as far as London voters are concerned, it was a premeditated con trick.
I assume this was the idea, but I'm really unconvinced a meaningful number of voters switched because her name was 1st and not 5th on the Green Assembly List Ballot. She could have done media from any spot on the list, surely?
People down list don't normally get media slots. They can try, but it isn't terribly realistic for the 6th person on the Green list to come on and talk about what they'll do if elected to City Hall, because they won't be. Particularly for Berry, as the question she'd then have been asked is "why are you quitting?" as she effectively would have been if down list that far.
Also query how Greens elect their list - presumably membership vote and she topped the list (having misled the membership about her plans too).
I think it's a bit naughty and it would have been decent to give it till the summer before saying she now needed to concentrate on winning the Brighton seat. I doubt if voters will care much but activists will note it as a cynical trick. In fairness one should note that it's absolutely standard practice in some other countries, e.g. France, where national bigwigs head a local assembly list but nobody thinks they'll actually serve - it's taken along the lines of "Vote for list X, the party led by bigwig Y".
I'm a bit conflicted about the Greens in general. I think they do take the environment very seriously as you'd expect and I've worked in coalition (in Waverley) with a Green colleague who pushed through heat pumps in social housing and relentlessly campaigned for 20 mph limits, and we had an excellent working partnership. But although they talk a good game on progressive alliances, in practice they tend to stand and usually fight everywhere, whereas LibDems and Labour do practice some quiet prioritising (even if we sometimes fall out over who the "leading progressive candidate" is).
Very good. I’d still like to know who’s innocently buying paintings from online marketplaces, and expecting them to be anywhere close to genuine?
If you’re buying a fancy painting, you’ll be buying it from a reputable dealer or auction house, whom you expect to have meticulously researched and documented the piece and its provenance, in exchange for the massive commission they’ll be earning on the sale.
Is anyone buying them at all at places like Ebay? The article read like PR for Sotheby's and Christie's.
I agree with the lead; somehow you expect better from the Green Party. As someone who voted Green the last two GEs, I can now discount them entirely from the coming one. It was deeply cynical and must leave many London voters feeling that they have been used.
Agree. Part of the schtick of the Greens - and LDs pre-2010 - was being different to other politicians, making them a good repository for protest votes. Afterall, the power-hungry are unlikely to join Greens or LDs so there's a certain logic to them being more principled, true or not. 2010 exposed the LDs on that front on tuition fees which was seen to be a core principle and one in fact on which they had made individual pledges. This could cost the Greens the 'we're different and better, anti-politicians' part of their vote, although it's not clear where that 'different and better, anti-politicians' vote would go.
It seems a supremely daft move, overall.
Yes, it's politically daft.
It allows the Labour candidate in Brighton Pavilion to simultaneously draw electors attention to: 1. The cynical way she treated the 12% who voted for her in London. 2. The fact that she is a Londoner while he is very much a local. 3. The worthlessness of any "pledges" she chooses to make in her campaign, because she can't be trusted.
Those interested in a possible forced adoptions scandal that could make the Post Office scandal seem small potatoes might like to know that the jury at the Gordon and Marten trial at the Old Bailey has today begin its sixth day of deliberations.
Britain still forcibly adopts babies at birth in large numbers, when other countries mostly stopped decades ago. Yes, thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed in this country, although social workers if pushed on the point will pull hard faces and say "What do you mean? That would be eugenics. 'Unsuited to parenting' is the term we use, actually. These dirty women can have as many children as they like. They just can't keep 'em."
The trial will go down in English legal history, because jurors asked more than 150 questions of witnesses. That probably works out at around one question every ~20 minutes.
My guess would be there are one or two SS lovers on the jury, possibly oblivious to how being so unusually pushy must have pissed their fellow jurors off something rotten. (Never mind how they must have pissed all the lawyers off, including the judge. Counsel must have felt they could hardly get a word in edgeways, or pursue a line of questioning, without some berk interrupting them. And I write as a strong supporter of jury trials.)
Cannot comment on this case, as its ongoing. but there are all too many shit parents out there. As the father of a 15 month old son I am horrified by the suffering that parents can inflict on defenceless children. Abhorrent behaviour.
Social services will come into contact with many of these people - is it any wonder that they try to do the best for children they perceive to be at risk? Just yesterday saw the suggestion that 1 in 5 children has experienced domestic abuse in the last year.
This happens in Scotland a lot too. Woman who have already had children removed from their care because of neglect, drug addiction, violent partners etc get pregnant again and the child is removed at birth for its own protection.
The alternative is forced contraception for these women. Tempting though that is, I think removal of the child at birth is the better option between 2 crap ones.
I agree with the lead; somehow you expect better from the Green Party. As someone who voted Green the last two GEs, I can now discount them entirely from the coming one. It was deeply cynical and must leave many London voters feeling that they have been used.
Agree. Part of the schtick of the Greens - and LDs pre-2010 - was being different to other politicians, making them a good repository for protest votes. Afterall, the power-hungry are unlikely to join Greens or LDs so there's a certain logic to them being more principled, true or not. 2010 exposed the LDs on that front on tuition fees which was seen to be a core principle and one in fact on which they had made individual pledges. This could cost the Greens the 'we're different and better, anti-politicians' part of their vote, although it's not clear where that 'different and better, anti-politicians' vote would go.
It seems a supremely daft move, overall.
Yes, it's politically daft.
It allows the Labour candidate in Brighton Pavilion to simultaneously draw electors attention to: 1. The cynical way she treated the 12% who voted for her in London. 2. The fact that she is a Londoner while he is very much a local. 3. The worthlessness of any "pledges" she chooses to make in her campaign, because she can't be trusted.
The Labour Party candidate, Tom Gray, has also received a ringing endorsement from Feargal Sharkey, which the Greens won't be happy about.
I agree with the lead; somehow you expect better from the Green Party. As someone who voted Green the last two GEs, I can now discount them entirely from the coming one. It was deeply cynical and must leave many London voters feeling that they have been used.
Agree. Part of the schtick of the Greens - and LDs pre-2010 - was being different to other politicians, making them a good repository for protest votes. Afterall, the power-hungry are unlikely to join Greens or LDs so there's a certain logic to them being more principled, true or not. 2010 exposed the LDs on that front on tuition fees which was seen to be a core principle and one in fact on which they had made individual pledges. This could cost the Greens the 'we're different and better, anti-politicians' part of their vote, although it's not clear where that 'different and better, anti-politicians' vote would go.
It seems a supremely daft move, overall.
Yes, it's politically daft.
It allows the Labour candidate in Brighton Pavilion to simultaneously draw electors attention to: 1. The cynical way she treated the 12% who voted for her in London. 2. The fact that she is a Londoner while he is very much a local. 3. The worthlessness of any "pledges" she chooses to make in her campaign, because she can't be trusted.
The Labour Party candidate, Tom Gray, has also received a ringing endorsement from Feargal Sharkey, which the Greens won't be happy about.
I agree with the lead; somehow you expect better from the Green Party. As someone who voted Green the last two GEs, I can now discount them entirely from the coming one. It was deeply cynical and must leave many London voters feeling that they have been used.
Agree. Part of the schtick of the Greens - and LDs pre-2010 - was being different to other politicians, making them a good repository for protest votes. Afterall, the power-hungry are unlikely to join Greens or LDs so there's a certain logic to them being more principled, true or not. 2010 exposed the LDs on that front on tuition fees which was seen to be a core principle and one in fact on which they had made individual pledges. This could cost the Greens the 'we're different and better, anti-politicians' part of their vote, although it's not clear where that 'different and better, anti-politicians' vote would go.
It seems a supremely daft move, overall.
Yes, it's politically daft.
It allows the Labour candidate in Brighton Pavilion to simultaneously draw electors attention to: 1. The cynical way she treated the 12% who voted for her in London. 2. The fact that she is a Londoner while he is very much a local. 3. The worthlessness of any "pledges" she chooses to make in her campaign, because she can't be trusted.
The Labour Party candidate, Tom Gray, has also received a ringing endorsement from Feargal Sharkey, which the Greens won't be happy about.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
Very good. I’d still like to know who’s innocently buying paintings from online marketplaces, and expecting them to be anywhere close to genuine?
If you’re buying a fancy painting, you’ll be buying it from a reputable dealer or auction house, whom you expect to have meticulously researched and documented the piece and its provenance, in exchange for the massive commission they’ll be earning on the sale.
Is anyone buying them at all at places like Ebay? The article read like PR for Sotheby's and Christie's.
Ha!
Look up the story of Christie's wine auctions and Rudy Kurniwan.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
It's not going to happen in "the next 10 to 15 years".
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
Automation is supposed to reduce the need for people.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
Are you aware that the last time Germany experienced more births than deaths was in 1971?
I agree with the lead; somehow you expect better from the Green Party. As someone who voted Green the last two GEs, I can now discount them entirely from the coming one. It was deeply cynical and must leave many London voters feeling that they have been used.
And did it really make that much difference who was on the list, anyway? Sian Berry doesn't strike me as that much of a draw. I'm sure there were voters who check the names on the lists, but I'm pretty sure there weren't many.
Poor show, anyway.
Is the list order decided by party members? That may be why we had the situation where their mayoral candidate was 4th on the list. Still, Berry shouldn’t have stood at all. She’d already resigned as a Camden councillor as she’s always in Brighton.
There is a balance to be made between letting party members choose - think Conservative Party - and having party HQ impose locally unpopular candidates. STV allows voters a greater choice than other PR systems, so not popular with party executives.
I don't know quite what the Greens did. I am guessing that they chose their mayoral candidate through one members vote, and then they chose their Assembly list and its order through another members vote. I wouldn't think it an example of the party centrally imposing its will if they just had a rule saying the mayoral candidate chosen gets to be first on the Assembly list...?
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
I think this analysis is incorrect. Germany is solving its energy problem following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It has other long term challenges however.
For a good 50-80 years “Made in England” was the best brand in the world of manufacturing. We started it, we perfected it early, it’s poignant to read of people at that time - in the 19th century - seeking out English manufactures goods because of their known and clear superiority
England still makes great stuff but not that much of it, relatively. Looks like the same is now happening to Germany
Up to a point Lord Coppery-but-actually-a-cheap-alloy. Brummagen was a synonym for cheap and shoddy goods.
Nowadays I’d say Made in England/UK is certainly an indication of quality in clothing and shoes. Unfortunately a lot of companies outsource at least some of their manufacturing, eg Loake, Grenson & Barker to India, Belstaff to Romania (they’re actually the best made that Belstaffs have ever been). The sign of absolute piss taking is ‘Designed in the UK’.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
It's not going to happen in "the next 10 to 15 years".
That's fair. And Zeihan always overdramatises. But Germany is due to fall from about 84M now to about 81.5M by 2040, then lose another ten million by 2100.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
It's not going to happen in "the next 10 to 15 years".
That's fair. And Zeihan always overdramatises. But Germany is due to fall from about 84M now to about 81.5M by 2040, then lose another ten million by 2100.
It's interesting how they've managed to prevent a population decline so far, despite having more deaths than births since 1972, as I mentioned earlier.
Most of us older than 2 would say that unironically. Screwing the economy of the largest country in Europe is only a benefit to Britain in the minds of those whose preferred reading matter remains Commando Comics.
The German idiocy of relying on Russian gas and abolishing nuclear has pushed their energy costs up thus destroying their industrial sector. We could, and should, have avoided that while avoiding our own native idiocy of Brexit.
It's more that the story of German businesses investing in the German economy slowly becoming a bit of a myth.
Increasingly, investment moved further East - when Ukraine was invaded, there were massive problems for industry in Germany due to components not arriving.
It's become quite noticeable, in the last few years, that for kitchen white goods (for example), some lines are not made in Germany and often have very poor quality.
The mad way in which the German car industry has approached electrification hasn't helped. Instead of taking it as a chance to explore new markets...
China is doing to Germany what Japan did to Britain (cf motorbikes)
Britain did it to itself on motorcycles. The Italian industry weathered the Japanese onslaught of the 70s and 80s by retreating to the top end of the market where margins were high. The sole German and US manufacturers (BMW and HD) also maintained healthy volumes right through that period partly on the sheer strength of the brands.
The British industry was badly managed, fragmented and horribly undercapitalised so they couldn't develop products of quality and relevance. Then Thatcher turned the pound into a petrocurrency in the 80s which killed all export potential.
Triumph are back now though and leaking slightly less oil than before.
For a good 50-80 years “Made in England” was the best brand in the world of manufacturing. We started it, we perfected it early, it’s poignant to read of people at that time - in the 19th century - seeking out English manufactures goods because of their known and clear superiority
England still makes great stuff but not that much of it, relatively. Looks like the same is now happening to Germany
Up to a point Lord Coppery-but-actually-a-cheap-alloy. Brummagen was a synonym for cheap and shoddy goods.
Nowadays I’d say Made in England/UK is certainly an indication of quality in clothing and shoes. Unfortunately a lot of companies outsource at least some of their manufacturing, eg Loake, Grenson & Barker to India, Belstaff to Romania (they’re actually the best made that Belstaffs have ever been). The sign of absolute piss taking is ‘Designed in the UK’.
"Shoddy" is cloth made from inferior quality recycled wool. Invented in Yorkshire in the early 19th Century.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
Are you aware that the last time Germany experienced more births than deaths was in 1971?
My position: bollocks to the idea there will be no more Germans by 2034. Yours: Germany's population is in very modest decline. These are totally consistent.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
Automation is supposed to reduce the need for people.
I'm pretty sure people need other people. If the only people left are insular bookish nerds who don't really need other people, I'd be talking to myself. And nobody really wants that.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
Most of us older than 2 would say that unironically. Screwing the economy of the largest country in Europe is only a benefit to Britain in the minds of those whose preferred reading matter remains Commando Comics.
The German idiocy of relying on Russian gas and abolishing nuclear has pushed their energy costs up thus destroying their industrial sector. We could, and should, have avoided that while avoiding our own native idiocy of Brexit.
At what point did I say this benefits Britain?! At no point
And I agree this is bad for Europe as a whole, what’s more it’s arguably been accelerated by Ukrainian proxies acting for America - blowing up Nordstream
But it’s not just energy. Germany is screwed because they are also reliant on mid-high level manufacturing, which China once imported in huge volumes. But now China can produce all this for itself; and so it doesn’t need German imports so much, and China can supplant Germany in OTHER export markets
I remember saying this might happen a few years back and PBers loudly pooh-poohing the notion on the basis “made in Germany” is such a good brand it cannot be replaced. It IS a good brand but if someone can do it cheaper, it will be replaced
Only partially. There are people who will buy Porsche as a brand. There are others who will buy the cheap Chinese Porscha brand.
OK I am dim, but can someone ELI5 what the point of Berry doing this was?
Get more votes using her higher pubic profile. Then quit the job, so the next Green on the list gets the job.
Using her coattails to get a Green into the assembly.
The problem is that Garbett was fourth on the list - they skipped over Zack Polanski, who should have been next in line.
I'm not sure Berry had that much higher a profile, however. Garbett was their Mayoral candidate, so her name was widely promoted during the campaign, and it was she who popped up on the local news. I don't think I spotted Berry being mentioned at all.
Zack Polanski, who once hypnotised a Sun journalist to make her breasts bigger, was already elected. When Berry resigned, the first person on the list who hadn't been elected got promoted to the Assembly, which was Garbett.
But no! This is a last and precious surviving remnant of Italy’s ancient primordial forest. This is the…. Foresta Umbra!! A place so sublime it is UNESCO listed. A remote and forgotten forest replete with legend and myth, where druids chanted and hermits lurked and pagans hid out well beyond the advent of Christianity. Even now there are rumours: of occulting amongst the eldritch beeches, which are weirdly oversized. Also: wolves!
“The Umbrian forest is characterized by the particular phenomenon of macrosomatism.
This means that the plants are significantly larger than normal.”
That's ruined the next series of Fake or Fortune then. Although come to think of it, art dealers will be salivating over the chance to use this AI in the other direction, that is to uncover sleepers: works that really are by famous artists and not just copies.
For a good 50-80 years “Made in England” was the best brand in the world of manufacturing. We started it, we perfected it early, it’s poignant to read of people at that time - in the 19th century - seeking out English manufactures goods because of their known and clear superiority
England still makes great stuff but not that much of it, relatively. Looks like the same is now happening to Germany
Up to a point Lord Coppery-but-actually-a-cheap-alloy. Brummagen was a synonym for cheap and shoddy goods.
Nowadays I’d say Made in England/UK is certainly an indication of quality in clothing and shoes. Unfortunately a lot of companies outsource at least some of their manufacturing, eg Loake, Grenson & Barker to India, Belstaff to Romania (they’re actually the best made that Belstaffs have ever been). The sign of absolute piss taking is ‘Designed in the UK’.
"Shoddy" is cloth made from inferior quality recycled wool. Invented in Yorkshire in the early 19th Century.
For a good 50-80 years “Made in England” was the best brand in the world of manufacturing. We started it, we perfected it early, it’s poignant to read of people at that time - in the 19th century - seeking out English manufactures goods because of their known and clear superiority
England still makes great stuff but not that much of it, relatively. Looks like the same is now happening to Germany
Up to a point Lord Coppery-but-actually-a-cheap-alloy. Brummagen was a synonym for cheap and shoddy goods.
Nowadays I’d say Made in England/UK is certainly an indication of quality in clothing and shoes. Unfortunately a lot of companies outsource at least some of their manufacturing, eg Loake, Grenson & Barker to India, Belstaff to Romania (they’re actually the best made that Belstaffs have ever been). The sign of absolute piss taking is ‘Designed in the UK’.
"Shoddy" is cloth made from inferior quality recycled wool. Invented in Yorkshire in the early 19th Century.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
Immigration amnesty sees 24,000 foreign nationals leave Korea https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/05/177_374266.html Some 24,000 foreign nationals living in Korea without permission left the country between Sept. 11 and Feb. 29 under an amnesty program.
An official at the Ministry of Justice told The Korea Times on Wednesday that the foreign nationals who had been staying here illegally ― just over 5 percent of all foreign residents without visas ― voluntarily returned to their countries during the six-month period.
Compared with the same period the previous year, the number of self-reports increased by 24.5 percent, the official added.
Those who left Korea voluntarily under the program have been exempt from paying fines ― up to 30 million won ($24,000) ― and will be allowed to reenter.
The goal of the amnesty was to reduce the burden on immigration officials, who are struggling with a steady increase in the number of undocumented residents, mainly for economic reasons, and to build trust with the foreign community here.
The release of the data comes amid growing calls to strengthen controls on foreign nationals living in the shadows. According to the ministry, the estimated number of such residents grew steadily to reach the 420,000 mark for the first time last year. Only 10 years ago, it was around 200,000...
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
I was told that a number of ex-Labour Corbynites had joined the Greens and were turning it into ultra left organization with a "green" wrapper.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
I was told that a number of ex-Labour Corbynites had joined the Greens and were turning it into ultra left organization with a "green" wrapper.
Hard lefties have been using the Greens as a new home, since before 1989. In a number of countries.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
I think that's still a bit of an odd characterisation of the situation and the nature of the "choice" she made - no choice at all was made yesterday, it was simply executing a well-established plan.
She was selected as Green candidate for Brighton Pavilion a long time ago, and had months to decide whether she could balance it. The fact is she decided long ago that she couldn't and wouldn't, but would lie about it to the voters. She could simply have withdrawn from the list prior to nominations going in a few weeks ago (which is really common in all parties - you've been selected but circumstances change).
It's not like she was having sleepless nights over the weekend as she weighed the enormity of the decision having faced the dawning reality of being an Assembly member AND a candidate. She'd been a candidate for ages and was always certain to be re-elected to the Assembly as she was top of the list. All she did by resigning was execute what had been her cynical plan from the start.
For a good 50-80 years “Made in England” was the best brand in the world of manufacturing. We started it, we perfected it early, it’s poignant to read of people at that time - in the 19th century - seeking out English manufactures goods because of their known and clear superiority
England still makes great stuff but not that much of it, relatively. Looks like the same is now happening to Germany
Up to a point Lord Coppery-but-actually-a-cheap-alloy. Brummagen was a synonym for cheap and shoddy goods.
Nowadays I’d say Made in England/UK is certainly an indication of quality in clothing and shoes. Unfortunately a lot of companies outsource at least some of their manufacturing, eg Loake, Grenson & Barker to India, Belstaff to Romania (they’re actually the best made that Belstaffs have ever been). The sign of absolute piss taking is ‘Designed in the UK’.
"Shoddy" is cloth made from inferior quality recycled wool. Invented in Yorkshire in the early 19th Century.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
Shouldn't Berry have resigned her London candidacy before the election? If London has a list voting system wouldn't the next candidate down the list be elected, as has happened when Berry resigned after the election? But the in this case voters would know who they were voting for?
Most of us older than 2 would say that unironically. Screwing the economy of the largest country in Europe is only a benefit to Britain in the minds of those whose preferred reading matter remains Commando Comics.
The German idiocy of relying on Russian gas and abolishing nuclear has pushed their energy costs up thus destroying their industrial sector. We could, and should, have avoided that while avoiding our own native idiocy of Brexit.
It's more that the story of German businesses investing in the German economy slowly becoming a bit of a myth.
Increasingly, investment moved further East - when Ukraine was invaded, there were massive problems for industry in Germany due to components not arriving.
It's become quite noticeable, in the last few years, that for kitchen white goods (for example), some lines are not made in Germany and often have very poor quality.
The mad way in which the German car industry has approached electrification hasn't helped. Instead of taking it as a chance to explore new markets...
China is doing to Germany what Japan did to Britain (cf motorbikes)
Britain did it to itself on motorcycles. The Italian industry weathered the Japanese onslaught of the 70s and 80s by retreating to the top end of the market where margins were high. The sole German and US manufacturers (BMW and HD) also maintained healthy volumes right through that period partly on the sheer strength of the brands.
The British industry was badly managed, fragmented and horribly undercapitalised so they couldn't develop products of quality and relevance. Then Thatcher turned the pound into a petrocurrency in the 80s which killed all export potential.
Triumph are back now though and leaking slightly less oil than before.
Surely Norton are also BACK!
For the 28th time.
I guess but selling 45 grand shed built specials that look like a 20 year old Japanese bike doesn't seem like a foundation for enduring success.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
I think that's still a bit of an odd characterisation of the situation and the nature of the "choice" she made - no choice at all was made yesterday, it was simply executing a well-established plan.
She was selected as Green candidate for Brighton Pavilion a long time ago, and had months to decide whether she could balance it. The fact is she decided long ago that she couldn't and wouldn't, but would lie about it to the voters. She could simply have withdrawn from the list prior to nominations going in a few weeks ago (which is really common in all parties - you've been selected but circumstances change).
It's not like she was having sleepless nights over the weekend as she weighed the enormity of the decision having faced the dawning reality of being an Assembly member AND a candidate. She'd been a candidate for ages and was always certain to be re-elected to the Assembly as she was top of the list. All she did by resigning was execute what had been her cynical plan from the start.
Indeed. She'd resigned from being a Camden councillor for the same reason months ago. I presume she held on to the Assembly job for the pay, but there was no reason for her to stand for another term.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
Redfield and Deltapoll are the only 2 that polled after the results came in so its a little early to judge
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
I was told that a number of ex-Labour Corbynites had joined the Greens and were turning it into ultra left organization with a "green" wrapper.
They’ve always attracted the watermelon segment, but they’re increasingly doing well at the other end of the spectrum with the conservation-minded NIMBY vote.
Anyway, new political compass:
1. Ideologues who care about being in government: Tory right, DUP, SF 2. Ideologues who don’t care about being in government: Reform, Greens, Labour left, Galloway’s lot 3. Non-ideologues who care about being in government: Tory and Labour centrists 4. Non-ideologues who don’t care about being in government: Lib Dems
I invite comments explaining how ideological the Lib Dems or Labour centrists are, and how I missed out the SNP and Plaid.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
Lol, "the end of its ethnicity". Bollocks.
If you don't have babies, you go away. China's having the same problem. Germany is going to have to import people to make up for it, because migrants are younger and young migrants have children, unlike the locals (see the lower number of children in urban areas compared to rural, and all the various problems with young men not having sex)
Automation is supposed to reduce the need for people.
I'm pretty sure people need other people. If the only people left are insular bookish nerds who don't really need other people, I'd be talking to myself. And nobody really wants that.
By coincidence, I've just been listening to an interview with racing pundit Joss Brierley who says he moved from pro punting to punditry because he wanted that human connection.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
Yes, that’s surprised me. Suggesting it’s a polling error and/or local election specifics. I think polling error - too many politically engaged respondents.
The main points of the text are as follows: 1. Germany has three unsolvable problems that will likely lead to its downfall as a modern economy and nation state in the next 20 to 30 years. 2. The first problem is Germany's trade relationship with Russia and China. Germany heavily relies on Russian raw materials, especially energy, but the cost of cutting ties with Russia has led to significantly higher energy prices. Companies in the energy sector are moving out due to the inability to bring costs down. Germany has also doubled down on its trade relationship with China, despite the ethical concerns associated with authoritarian regimes. 3. The second problem is Germany's demographics. The country has been on a downward spiral for over a hundred years, and by 2030, a large portion of the skilled labor force will be retired. This will lead to a decline in workmanship and a collapse in the workforce, making it difficult for Germany to fund its own industrial buildup and consume what it produces. 4. The third problem is Germany's energy system. Germany relies on a bottomless supply of inexpensive and reliable energy, primarily from Russia. However, with the decline in trade relations with Russia, Germany now relies on liquefied natural gas from the United States and crude oil from the Middle East. The country has largely shut down nuclear power and is left with lignite coal, which contributes to high carbon emissions. 5. The combination of these three problems makes Germany's current system unsustainable. The country is likely to face the end of its ethnicity and decline as an industrial power within the next 10 to 15 years. The unresolved European debt crisis and the energy crisis further contribute to the bleak outlook for Germany. 6. Despite these challenges, Germany has shown a willingness to prioritize morals and ethics over convenience and wealth. This was evident when Germany chose to face an energy crisis rather than give in to Russia's demands during the Ukraine war. However, it remains to be seen if Germany's commitment to morals and ethics will be enough to overcome its other problems.
I think this analysis is incorrect. Germany is solving its energy problem following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It has other long term challenges however.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
Three of those polls had fieldwork on or before polling day, so there's really only the Redfield & Wilton poll to go on.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
Yes, that’s surprised me. Suggesting it’s a polling error and/or local election specifics. I think polling error - too many politically engaged respondents.
Local election specifics for me. Locals have always been different, or the House of Commons would be full of "independent" MPs. Voters know they can get Greens (say) onto their council but the government will be red or blue. (Other colours are available, especially in Scotland). Add into that only half the country has local elections, and half of those voters don't vote.
ETA and what LostPassword just said about fieldwork dates.
There have been 4 polls since the local elections. There is absolutely no evidence yet that they have shifted polling. No boost for the smaller parties that did well. No slump for Reform UK, as some had suggested.
Yes, that’s surprised me. Suggesting it’s a polling error and/or local election specifics. I think polling error - too many politically engaged respondents.
Or maybe the public are too politically unengaged. I don't think the public pay all that much attention to the details of the locals.
You shouldn't stand for something you know you won't be doing - but I guess resigning immediately is better than trying to be an Assembly member when you don't have the time to give it justice?
It is blindingly obvious this was her plan all along
It is. But having stood (which she shouldn't have) it is now better to resign than do the job badly because she's focused on something else. I mean, that would be even worse, wouldn't it. Or would it? Not sure really.
If you ignore all the bad things she did then her behaviour was exemplary.
Lol - sort of. She's done the least bad thing of the two things she could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Much like one of those kidnappers who charitably decides, after a three day seige, to release rather than kill their hostage. People are a bit harsh on them... in fact, they've done the least bad of the two things they could have done having done a bad thing in the first place.
Yes it's like that. Such a person would get a considerably shorter jail sentence and rightly so.
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
The other possibility would have been to have used the Assembly seat as a back-up plan, in case she fails to be elected as MP. Plenty of people wouldn't like they, but I think it's understandable from a human point of view, and it's not dishonest.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history
LOL
I was told that a number of ex-Labour Corbynites had joined the Greens and were turning it into ultra left organization with a "green" wrapper.
They’ve always attracted the watermelon segment, but they’re increasingly doing well at the other end of the spectrum with the conservation-minded NIMBY vote.
Anyway, new political compass:
1. Ideologues who care about being in government: Tory right, DUP, SF 2. Ideologues who don’t care about being in government: Reform, Greens, Labour left, Galloway’s lot 3. Non-ideologues who care about being in government: Tory and Labour centrists 4. Non-ideologues who don’t care about being in government: Lib Dems
I invite comments explaining how ideological the Lib Dems or Labour centrists are, and how I missed out the SNP and Plaid.
No, that's very astute. Group 2 are essentially pressure groups, and sometimes move in and out of the more militant NGOs, who have a similar mindset. They get squeezed a bit at GE time because the debate is then overwhelmingly "Who's going to be the Government?" - but real adherents of group 2 really don't care much.
On the post-local election polling, I wasn't expecting any great shifts. Only a minority were really paying attention, and even they just got a general message "Labour doing pretty well, Tories in a mess, various other parties did OK too", which is exactly what they thought before. What sort of impact were you expecting?
Comments
Bert Hopwoods book of how complacent and incompetent management turned a UK world beating industry into extinction in 2 decades is quite the eye opener.
Whatever Happened to the British Motor Cycle Industry? https://amzn.eu/d/gktdEF9
fedsrozzers say: jewellery shop, not jewelry store.Another reason not to read too into local election results, to add to those already made, is that turnout in local elections is in the ball park of half that in general elections. So you need to take into account both the matter of people who do vote in local elections voting differently in the tactical context of general elections and also the question of how people who vote in general elections only choose to vote.
fancyAIFakeDetector = function(market) { if(market == "ebay"){ verdict = "Fake" } else { verdict = "Real" } return(verdict) }Near 100% accuracy?
My pension and lifetime isa have both gone up a fair bit in the last few days.
(May still be true, of course!)
All the wards in Watford district are in Watford constituency, along with Bushey North ward from Hertsmere district (no election this year).
The total local votes in Watford on May 2nd were:
LD 11,243
Lab 6,775
Con 3,612
Reform 1,113
Grn 239
TUSC 204
Ind 68
Heritage 65
I'm not sure Berry had that much higher a profile, however. Garbett was their Mayoral candidate, so her name was widely promoted during the campaign, and it was she who popped up on the local news. I don't think I spotted Berry being mentioned at all.
Yours, Mr Charitable.
Four letter word beginning with L and ending in Eisenhower
Berry had a fair amount of coverage in the campaign as their top list candidate (although it's relative - they are a smaller party and the Assembly elections are not the big show in the Mayoral election year). But of course she never was their top list candidate, and had already decided to stand down, so it was a bit of a con job.
Britain still forcibly adopts babies at birth in large numbers, when other countries mostly stopped decades ago. Yes, thousands of women are labelled unfit to breed in this country, although social workers if pushed on the point will pull hard faces and say "What do you mean? You're an ignorant loony who probably teams up with other loonies on Facebook and supports FGM. That would be eugenics. 'Unsuited to parenting' is the term we professionals use. These dirty women are free to have as many children as they like. They just can't keep 'em."
The trial will go down in English legal history, because jurors asked more than 150 questions of witnesses. That probably works out at around one question every ~20 minutes.
My guess would be there are one or two SS lovers on the jury, possibly oblivious to how being so unusually pushy must have pissed their fellow jurors off something rotten.
(Never mind how they must have pissed all the lawyers off too, including the judge. Counsel must have felt they could hardly get a word in edgeways, or pursue a line of questioning, without some berk interrupting them. And I write as a strong supporter of jury trials.)
@Leon probably should. And will, when he sees the cultists dressed as druids, with well thumbed copies of the Genesis Secret.
Also query how Greens elect their list - presumably membership vote and she topped the list (having misled the membership about her plans too).
If you’re buying a fancy painting, you’ll be buying it from a reputable dealer or auction house, whom you expect to have meticulously researched and documented the piece and its provenance, in exchange for the massive commission they’ll be earning on the sale.
Social services will come into contact with many of these people - is it any wonder that they try to do the best for children they perceive to be at risk? Just yesterday saw the suggestion that 1 in 5 children has experienced domestic abuse in the last year.
First major policy tweet by Richard Parker, the new West Midlands mayor, naturally calls for a Gazan ceasefire and the Rafah offensive not to go ahead.
https://twitter.com/RichParkerLab/status/1787523097119093042
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/whoismostexposedtorisinghousingcostsinenglandandwales/2024-04-25
I'm a bit conflicted about the Greens in general. I think they do take the environment very seriously as you'd expect and I've worked in coalition (in Waverley) with a Green colleague who pushed through heat pumps in social housing and relentlessly campaigned for 20 mph limits, and we had an excellent working partnership. But although they talk a good game on progressive alliances, in practice they tend to stand and usually fight everywhere, whereas LibDems and Labour do practice some quiet prioritising (even if we sometimes fall out over who the "leading progressive candidate" is).
The article read like PR for Sotheby's and Christie's.
It allows the Labour candidate in Brighton Pavilion to simultaneously draw electors attention to:
1. The cynical way she treated the 12% who voted for her in London.
2. The fact that she is a Londoner while he is very much a local.
3. The worthlessness of any "pledges" she chooses to make in her campaign, because she can't be trusted.
The alternative is forced contraception for these women. Tempting though that is, I think removal of the child at birth is the better option between 2 crap ones.
Look up the story of Christie's wine auctions and Rudy Kurniwan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#Statistics_since_1817
Nowadays I’d say Made in England/UK is certainly an indication of quality in clothing and shoes. Unfortunately a lot of companies outsource at least some of their manufacturing, eg Loake, Grenson & Barker to India, Belstaff to Romania (they’re actually the best made that Belstaffs have ever been). The sign of absolute piss taking is ‘Designed in the UK’.
https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/idb/#/dashboard?CCODE_SINGLE=DE&CCODE=DE&COUNTRY_YEAR=2024&COUNTRY_YR_ANIM=2024
She shouldn't have stood - no question about that - but having done so she faced a choice:
(i) Take up the London job and do it with no commitment or focus or energy, prioritising Brighton but still picking up the London salary, blocking somebody else from doing it who would give it their all.
(ii) Resign immediately.
In opting for (ii) she chose the nobler course. At least arguably. If we're looking for a generous-minded take (since it's the Greens and they're on the right side of history) I think this would be it.
But still, standing for election when you know you're going to resign straightaway - that's pretty poor.
For the 28th time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_wool
We literally invented shoddy goods!
Yours: Germany's population is in very modest decline.
These are totally consistent.
I really don't think you can separate the choice to stand for election from the decision to stand down when they were so clearly part of the same decision for Berry.
But no! This is a last and precious surviving remnant of Italy’s ancient primordial forest. This is the…. Foresta Umbra!! A place so sublime it is UNESCO listed. A remote and forgotten forest replete with legend and myth, where druids chanted and hermits lurked and pagans hid out well beyond the advent of Christianity. Even now there are rumours: of occulting amongst the eldritch beeches, which are weirdly oversized. Also: wolves!
“The Umbrian forest is characterized by the particular phenomenon of macrosomatism.
This means that the plants are significantly larger than normal.”
So far it just feels like a nice wood, TBH
https://guide.puglia.it/en/foresta-umbra-gargano
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2GD1YWM/shoddy-and-mungo-mill-dewsbury-in-august-2021-2GD1YWM.jpg
LOL
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/05/177_374266.html
Some 24,000 foreign nationals living in Korea without permission left the country between Sept. 11 and Feb. 29 under an amnesty program.
An official at the Ministry of Justice told The Korea Times on Wednesday that the foreign nationals who had been staying here illegally ― just over 5 percent of all foreign residents without visas ― voluntarily returned to their countries during the six-month period.
Compared with the same period the previous year, the number of self-reports increased by 24.5 percent, the official added.
Those who left Korea voluntarily under the program have been exempt from paying fines ― up to 30 million won ($24,000) ― and will be allowed to reenter.
The goal of the amnesty was to reduce the burden on immigration officials, who are struggling with a steady increase in the number of undocumented residents, mainly for economic reasons, and to build trust with the foreign community here.
The release of the data comes amid growing calls to strengthen controls on foreign nationals living in the shadows. According to the ministry, the estimated number of such residents grew steadily to reach the 420,000 mark for the first time last year. Only 10 years ago, it was around 200,000...
Party : Party list vote share : YouGov poll
LAB : 38 : 43
CON : 26 : 21
GRN : 12 : 12
LB : 9 : 11
REF : 6 : 8
5% too high on Labour, 5% too low on the Tories.
Midway on our life’s journey, I found myself / In dark woods, the right road lost
Hence the watermelon comments.
She was selected as Green candidate for Brighton Pavilion a long time ago, and had months to decide whether she could balance it. The fact is she decided long ago that she couldn't and wouldn't, but would lie about it to the voters. She could simply have withdrawn from the list prior to nominations going in a few weeks ago (which is really common in all parties - you've been selected but circumstances change).
It's not like she was having sleepless nights over the weekend as she weighed the enormity of the decision having faced the dawning reality of being an Assembly member AND a candidate. She'd been a candidate for ages and was always certain to be re-elected to the Assembly as she was top of the list. All she did by resigning was execute what had been her cynical plan from the start.
Obviously
Anyway, new political compass:
1. Ideologues who care about being in government: Tory right, DUP, SF
2. Ideologues who don’t care about being in government: Reform, Greens, Labour left, Galloway’s lot
3. Non-ideologues who care about being in government: Tory and Labour centrists
4. Non-ideologues who don’t care about being in government: Lib Dems
I invite comments explaining how ideological the Lib Dems or Labour centrists are, and how I missed out the SNP and Plaid.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2024/03/27/germanys-real-challenges-are-aging-underinvestment-and-too-much-red-tape
Patience.
ETA and what LostPassword just said about fieldwork dates.
On the post-local election polling, I wasn't expecting any great shifts. Only a minority were really paying attention, and even they just got a general message "Labour doing pretty well, Tories in a mess, various other parties did OK too", which is exactly what they thought before. What sort of impact were you expecting?