One point about the prisons - why is it that we can't deport all our foreign national prisoners*
* Not including Syrians, Afghans, Somalians, Iranians and other difficult countries but Indians, Albanians, French, USA and so forth. Apparently there's over 10,000 of them in our jails - they can't all be from countries like the first four.
Carte blanche for foreigners to do what they like. Their country of origin is not going to imprison them on our instructions.
One point about the prisons - why is it that we can't deport all our foreign national prisoners*
* Not including Syrians, Afghans, Somalians, Iranians and other difficult countries but Indians, Albanians, French, USA and so forth. Apparently there's over 10,000 of them in our jails - they can't all be from countries like the first four.
Because it’s now legally impossible to deport anyone from the UK, apart from a handful of Windrush veterans and Australians overstaying visas by decades.
Really ?!
Fine, but it means the maximum penalty for any crime is a free ticket home. Not a great deterrent.
The standard used to be - on release from jail, on the plane to wherever, if they don't have indefinite leave to remain. Has that changed?
Some countries have reciprocal agreements, so their nationals can be sent home to complete their sentences in a "home" prison.
I think reciprocal agreements would be fine - I mean who would we have back, Andrew Tate possibly from Romania, some drug runners from Thailand, white collar criminals from the USA and some visa overstayers from Oz (Well they're sent back anyway)
We have already done some reciprocal prison agreements. It depends on both countries agreeing. IIRC the Thais don't want to do this for the drug smugglers they catch, because the UK government won't agree to keeping them in prison for Thai style prison sentences.
We have reciprocal agreements with about a hundred countries, I believe - the most notable one recently was with Albania at the end of 2022.
3,926 prisoners were returned in 2023, including 1,453 to Albania and 1,924 to the EU. The number going back to the EU is about half what it was before Brexit - we can no longer deport prisoners with EU Settled Status, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
The countries not covered include Jamaica (around 400 prisoners), Pakistan (~300), Somalia (~250), and Nigeria (~200). It's definitely worth seeking agreements with them, but isn't going to solve the current capacity crisis.
the Labour government has started its search for a new border security commander – a plan it trumpeted in the election as its answer to the migration crisis (despite the job already existing). The role has been advertised at £140,000-£200,000, with a very healthy 27% pension, and location is described as ‘flexible’:
“Flexible: including, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Peterborough, Manchester, Solihull, Sheffield, Croydon and London. Regular travel to London (if based nationally) and overseas will be required.”
That said, I'm not sure there's a mechanism to make him to unless he wants to go and decides to go. Unless his thousands of delegates all rat on him at the convention.
So perhaps he just doesn't even if the everyone else wants him to.
Why should he go though ? What is the imperative for him to. As HYUFD points out he polls better against the Trumpdozer than any other likely candidate.
The time for him to have stepped down was before going through the rounds of primaries and caucuses.
Nominate a better VP, stand for election, beat the Trumpdozer then stand down is a scenario.
The problem is, is that you're looking at it from a 'just defeat Trump' point of view - which might be possible.
But that isn't what US Presidential elections are asking. They are asking, "Who do you feel is best to run our country for the next four years?"
The answer to that question is most likely not Trump or Biden but at the moment that is what is being offered.
What is now going through the minds of every reasonable voter (ie, not the 'donkey with the red rosset sort' who are largely irrelevent to this decision) is:
Is Biden mentally sharp anymore? It appears he isn't. Do I really want him being President for the next four years when it's very likely 12 months from now he won't remember his own name, let alone Zelensky's?
There are two equally reasonable and rational conclusions from this: 1. Yes. Despite everything wrong with Biden, Trump is a fundamental threat to US democracy and seeing him back in the White House would mean the end of the United States - I can't risk it - I'll vote Biden and hope he's eased out in 2025 anyway to be replaced by Harris; OR 2. No. In all good conscious, I can't vote for Biden. He's no longer able to do this and the Democrats themselves are proving unable to replace him. What if they let him win and never replace him and we have a senile dementia-ridden old man running the country for four years! Despite the possible danger from a Trump win, that's a risk I'm willing to take against a risk I'm not willing to take. I'll vote Trump.
I strongly suspect that more and more American's are moving from (1) to (2).
Unless something comes up to show that Trump has also lost it, I think Trump will beat Biden easily now.
Europe therefore needs to plan to assume Trump will be President, and plan to assume the US will leave NATO and likely stop all support to Ukraine very soon - possibly even lending support to Russia(!)
Plenty has come up that Trump has lost it. Its not as good a story as Biden though so not receiving the same attention.
Its a feature of the UK system that there's no way a PM could have lasted this long when incapable.
Winston Churchill had a heart attack during the war, and a stroke during his second term. Both were covered up for decades.
ETA Churchill's Secret (about the stroke & recovery) can be seen on YouTube or Amazon Prime, but not ITVx, oddly.
So 70+ and 80+ years ago.
A very different world - there wasn't any PMQs, for example, until the 1960s.
PMQs would detect nothing, so rarely do Prime Ministers address the actual question asked. Half the time they probably do not even hear the questions from the Leader of the Opposition. You might recall Theresa May leaning into the bench speakers, and Boris for a time had the whips quell the barracking.
In any case, your history is mistaken. Churchill did answer PMQs twice a week, as was the pattern until Blair. Gladstone was the first to have the modern-style PMQ slot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister's_Questions
ETA more to the point, Churchill of course chaired Cabinet meetings with 22-ish ministers all of whom wanted the old boy out so they could sit in the big chair.
PMQ would be mediated by Hansard editors and the press, pre TV days
But Biden isn't just avoiding questions. In any case, a PM cannot simply put out a rehearsed line irrespective of a question without looking absurd. There does have to be some pretence at addressing the point in hand. That takes a mind that doesn't need to be nimble but does need to be sufficiently in the game to understand the point and come up with a credible response. And in the Commons, if he or she doesn't, opposition MPs will very quickly be vocally on the case and government MPs embarrassedly quiet.
However, that's simply about *what* to say; Biden's problem is also what he's saying and how he's saying it. Introducing Zelensky as Putin or confusing Harris's name with Trump's is just basic factual stuff you can't rehearse lines for - indeed, if you can't get the name right of key allies and colleagues, how can you be relied on to get anything more complex right?
There will undoubtedly be more such incidents over coming months if Biden insists on continuing to retain the Democrat nomination; he cannot hide and he cannot get things right that he needs to get right. His capacity is now a well-embedded narrative so the focus will be on his slips - and he'll keep making them not least because he's always made them, except now he won't be given any leeway. But of course he's now making a lot more.
Through formal processes there's no way to remove the nomination: the delegates are elected and the numbers are his. But informal pressure - public or private - can be enough. My guess is it will have to be public: he's too stubborn and probably to isolated for private messages to persuade him. Will enough senior Democrats be willing to go public? On that question may hang the Republic.
1) Campaign finance. Only Harris can simply go forward with the money raised so far. However, the ticket goes from Biden/Harris to Harris/?
American campaign finance law is extremely lax is some ways and extremely proscriptive in others. Even if it is Harris taking over the ticket there will be plenty of ways for lawyers to interfere. And tie up the campaign in allegations of illegality. Given the GOP hard right has pushed judges into the system (not just the Supreme Court), you can bet on some eye bending judgements - "This is illegal because it is done by a Democrat"....
If it isn't Harris, then all the money has to go back and be re-donated, probably. Orchestrating that will be fun. Plus all kinds of legal challenges are possible (see above)
2) Harris. It looks like she would lose slightly worse than Biden. There isn't a challenger who stands out as better than Biden. Even now.
Trump seems very clear that he wants a re-run vs Biden. Which in a way makes sense - very narrow last time and with Biden off his game, he has a known opponent. Plus, for Trump, there is the revenge aspect of defeating the man who defeated him.
So the Dems would be backing (probably Harris) as an 52 card pickup game - hope that between the turmoil and the occasion, their new pick would soar in the polls.
On the other hand Biden stepping down hits the Trump Campaign too, perhaps even harder.
It would require a major change to reorientate against Harris.
It wouldn't 'elitist coastal liberal, who makes Hillary look charismatic and with the common touch' the Trump campaign against Harris in the rustbelt swing states writes itself.
Biden had an OK press conference last night and is clearly not going to step down without clear polling Harris consistently polls better v Trump than he does
All you need to think about is that Biden stays in then Trump wins. It won't even be close.
Facing that, understanding that, means that anyone, even a Hail Mary pass, would be better than letting Biden remain as the Dem nominee. Trump understands this very well which is why his camp are talking up Biden's abilities.
You think that but the polls don't show it I afraid, polls do not show alternatives to Biden doing better and often they do worse
That said, I'm not sure there's a mechanism to make him to unless he wants to go and decides to go. Unless his thousands of delegates all rat on him at the convention.
So perhaps he just doesn't even if the everyone else wants him to.
Why should he go though ? What is the imperative for him to. As HYUFD points out he polls better against the Trumpdozer than any other likely candidate.
The time for him to have stepped down was before going through the rounds of primaries and caucuses.
Nominate a better VP, stand for election, beat the Trumpdozer then stand down is a scenario.
The problem is, is that you're looking at it from a 'just defeat Trump' point of view - which might be possible.
But that isn't what US Presidential elections are asking. They are asking, "Who do you feel is best to run our country for the next four years?"
The answer to that question is most likely not Trump or Biden but at the moment that is what is being offered.
What is now going through the minds of every reasonable voter (ie, not the 'donkey with the red rosset sort' who are largely irrelevent to this decision) is:
Is Biden mentally sharp anymore? It appears he isn't. Do I really want him being President for the next four years when it's very likely 12 months from now he won't remember his own name, let alone Zelensky's?
There are two equally reasonable and rational conclusions from this: 1. Yes. Despite everything wrong with Biden, Trump is a fundamental threat to US democracy and seeing him back in the White House would mean the end of the United States - I can't risk it - I'll vote Biden and hope he's eased out in 2025 anyway to be replaced by Harris; OR 2. No. In all good conscious, I can't vote for Biden. He's no longer able to do this and the Democrats themselves are proving unable to replace him. What if they let him win and never replace him and we have a senile dementia-ridden old man running the country for four years! Despite the possible danger from a Trump win, that's a risk I'm willing to take against a risk I'm not willing to take. I'll vote Trump.
I strongly suspect that more and more American's are moving from (1) to (2).
Unless something comes up to show that Trump has also lost it, I think Trump will beat Biden easily now.
Europe therefore needs to plan to assume Trump will be President, and plan to assume the US will leave NATO and likely stop all support to Ukraine very soon - possibly even lending support to Russia(!)
You might be right about voters moving away from the President, and that is certainly what we'd expect, but curiously, so far polling suggests Biden's infirmity is already priced in. Obviously we've not seen if yesterday's gaffe-fest has moved the dial.
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
The IPPR figure takes account of unregistered adults, whereas official turnout is measured against those registered to vote (and often moves between UK and mainland GB figures).
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
Surely, the Democratic tipping point was reached a year ago. The poor man has dementia and should have been allowed to go. The only man to get better from dementia was Ernest Saunders and he didn't have it in the first place.
The career people in post will claim that it's only until the election is over. And the Soviet Union did it for years, having the entire Politburo standing around looking like stuffed dummies. Biden can no longer do anything unscripted, Starmer will look back on his verdict on Biden with embarrassment.
Yet even the US politburo can't keep the pretence up much longer. How can he be allowed in a TV studio? The poor bloke should be allowed to retire.
That’s actually an interesting one. There are a number of spats between Germany and France in the economic sphere at the moment. And never forget the German worship of sound money.
For example, days before the first launch of Ariane 6, Eumetsat cancelled a planned launch with Ariane 6, moving it to the cheaper and proven SpaceX F9.
On the face of it an arguable decision - the satellite is unique and expensive and it would have been the first flight of that configuration of Ariane 6. When originally booked it would have flown years after A6 went into service. But A6 was delayed. And delayed.
But Ariane is seen as a French controlled EU champion. To the the French this is something like treason.
Worse, the vote by the controlling countries in Eumetsat was everyone vs France. Germany has orchestrated the votes before the meeting to get a 14-1 result.
The single biggest question in space flight at the moment, is who exactly is prepared to put in the investment required to prevent a SpaceX monopoly?
The best possible solution is likely to be some international consortium agreeing to pay $$$ to open source the F9 technology on a perpetual basis for low earth orbit, and let Musk and co get on with their ambitions to colonise Mars.
Somewhat amazingly, SpaceX remains a private company.
Nope of the technology is secret. F9 is a two stage, LOX/Kero rocket, using a gas generator cycle engine with pintle injection. On the face of it that is old tech.
SpaceX don't patent very much - because, as Musk said, suing the Chinese and Russian (or any other) government for intellectual property theft would be a waste of time.
SpaceX won't and can't release their detailed design, no matter the money - ITAR is something that everyone in American politics agree on. From far left to far right.
They don't even need to - both Ariane and some Chinese companies have published plans to build clones of F9. See Ariane Themis.
Then you have Starship - which is, as an expendable, already cheaper than Ariane 6 per flight!
The problem is that nearly all space launch systems are "National Champions" and are about subsiding a national launch capability and putting jobs in the right places. This is how you get to Ariane 6 *costing* more than $100 million a launch (unsubsidised). F9 now *costs* between $20-28 million.
The secret bit is the software that enables the landings, that’s the real SpaceX IP. Anyone can build their simple-ish rocket, but no-one else can land it on a 100mx100m barge in the middle of the ocean.
The suicide burn* algorithm isn't that hard to figure out.
The paper is by the SpaceX guy who led the team for the landing project.
*It's called that because the F9 has a thrust to weight of more than 1 on landing. So it can't hover - if it carried on thrusting, it would starting climbing back into the sky.. So, instead, it heads for the ground at a velocity that means, when it is slowing down, zero velocity just happens to be at zero feet.
If it had a thrust to weight ratio of less than 1, it wouldn't be landing; it'd be crashing.
There's actually a potential solution for that - involves some weird manoeuvres and using the fuselage of the rocket as a lifting surface. Gary Hudson did the maths on that, IIRC, long ago.
Some of you will know HazeGrayArt's computer animations of lost/future rocket proposals. Here is one of them for Saturn-Shuttle, a Nixon-era proposal sadly abandoned
1) Campaign finance. Only Harris can simply go forward with the money raised so far. However, the ticket goes from Biden/Harris to Harris/?
American campaign finance law is extremely lax is some ways and extremely proscriptive in others. Even if it is Harris taking over the ticket there will be plenty of ways for lawyers to interfere. And tie up the campaign in allegations of illegality. Given the GOP hard right has pushed judges into the system (not just the Supreme Court), you can bet on some eye bending judgements - "This is illegal because it is done by a Democrat"....
If it isn't Harris, then all the money has to go back and be re-donated, probably. Orchestrating that will be fun. Plus all kinds of legal challenges are possible (see above)
2) Harris. It looks like she would lose slightly worse than Biden. There isn't a challenger who stands out as better than Biden. Even now.
Trump seems very clear that he wants a re-run vs Biden. Which in a way makes sense - very narrow last time and with Biden off his game, he has a known opponent. Plus, for Trump, there is the revenge aspect of defeating the man who defeated him.
So the Dems would be backing (probably Harris) as an 52 card pickup game - hope that between the turmoil and the occasion, their new pick would soar in the polls.
On the other hand Biden stepping down hits the Trump Campaign too, perhaps even harder.
It would require a major change to reorientate against Harris.
It wouldn't 'elitist coastal liberal, who makes Hillary look charismatic and with the common touch' the Trump campaign against Harris in the rustbelt swing states writes itself.
Biden had an OK press conference last night and is clearly not going to step down without clear polling Harris consistently polls better v Trump than he does
All you need to think about is that Biden stays in then Trump wins. It won't even be close.
Facing that, understanding that, means that anyone, even a Hail Mary pass, would be better than letting Biden remain as the Dem nominee. Trump understands this very well which is why his camp are talking up Biden's abilities.
You think that but the polls don't show it I afraid, polls do not show alternatives to Biden doing better and often they do worse
There are polls showing the opposite, you just quote selectively.
However, that's simply about *what* to say; Biden's problem is also what he's saying and how he's saying it. Introducing Zelensky as Putin or confusing Harris's name with Trump's is just basic factual stuff you can't rehearse lines for - indeed, if you can't get the name right of key allies and colleagues, how can you be relied on to get anything more complex right?
He did though, did you see his answer on Israel/Palestine ? He's undoubtedly the most qualified US candidate for that particular issue - his answer was very very good.
Simon Schama @simon_schama · 4h Brushing off the opposition to Biden continuing as presmptive nominee as "elite" opinion is absurd as poll after poll shows 70% plus of public feels he is too old for the presidency
the Labour government has started its search for a new border security commander – a plan it trumpeted in the election as its answer to the migration crisis (despite the job already existing). The role has been advertised at £140,000-£200,000, with a very healthy 27% pension, and location is described as ‘flexible’:
“Flexible: including, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Peterborough, Manchester, Solihull, Sheffield, Croydon and London. Regular travel to London (if based nationally) and overseas will be required.”
Nothing wrong with that. The people "doing the work" need to be paid well to get good people. We'd get the same politicians if they were paid 10 times more.
Alan Sugar once said the reason government procurement is a mess is they can't pay the seven-figure salaries to compete with the private sector.
Yup. Government should hire a bunch of seriously well-paid procurement guys, who are personally incentivised to screw the private contractors to the ground.
Chinese don't miss a trick. Sell the pre-cusors to the Mexican, then offer to launder the proceeds of crimes...
As do UK, American, Russian, Indian, Japanese, Swiss brokers too. And a fair few from small islands too. It would be fairly amazing if any significant economy or financial centre didn't have such actors. Hundreds of billions might be a story.
Simon Schama @simon_schama · 4h Brushing off the opposition to Biden continuing as presmptive nominee as "elite" opinion is absurd as poll after poll shows 70% plus of public feels he is too old for the presidency
Simon Schama @simon_schama · 4h Brushing off the opposition to Biden continuing as presmptive nominee as "elite" opinion is absurd as poll after poll shows 70% plus of public feels he is too old for the presidency
Chinese don't miss a trick. Sell the pre-cusors to the Mexican, then offer to launder the proceeds of crimes...
As do UK, American, Russian, Indian, Japanese, Swiss brokers too. And a fair few from small islands too. It would be fairly amazing if any significant economy or financial centre didn't have such actors. Hundreds of billions might be a story.
FT report is saying the Chinese are rapidly becoming THE brokers. Hawala system has been widely used in the past to get it to Saudi / Dubai (there was the story of the Deutsche Bank lady who got sacked after she raised the issue that a branch had expensed wheelbarrows as so many customers were requiring a way to move large amount of cash to their vehicles).
Chinese don't miss a trick. Sell the pre-cusors to the Mexican, then offer to launder the proceeds of crimes...
As do UK, American, Russian, Indian, Japanese, Swiss brokers too. And a fair few from small islands too. It would be fairly amazing if any significant economy or financial centre didn't have such actors. Hundreds of billions might be a story.
FT report is saying the Chinese are rapidly becoming THE brokers. Hawala system has been widely used in the past.
That’s actually an interesting one. There are a number of spats between Germany and France in the economic sphere at the moment. And never forget the German worship of sound money.
For example, days before the first launch of Ariane 6, Eumetsat cancelled a planned launch with Ariane 6, moving it to the cheaper and proven SpaceX F9.
On the face of it an arguable decision - the satellite is unique and expensive and it would have been the first flight of that configuration of Ariane 6. When originally booked it would have flown years after A6 went into service. But A6 was delayed. And delayed.
But Ariane is seen as a French controlled EU champion. To the the French this is something like treason.
Worse, the vote by the controlling countries in Eumetsat was everyone vs France. Germany has orchestrated the votes before the meeting to get a 14-1 result.
The single biggest question in space flight at the moment, is who exactly is prepared to put in the investment required to prevent a SpaceX monopoly?
The best possible solution is likely to be some international consortium agreeing to pay $$$ to open source the F9 technology on a perpetual basis for low earth orbit, and let Musk and co get on with their ambitions to colonise Mars.
Somewhat amazingly, SpaceX remains a private company.
Nope of the technology is secret. F9 is a two stage, LOX/Kero rocket, using a gas generator cycle engine with pintle injection. On the face of it that is old tech.
SpaceX don't patent very much - because, as Musk said, suing the Chinese and Russian (or any other) government for intellectual property theft would be a waste of time.
SpaceX won't and can't release their detailed design, no matter the money - ITAR is something that everyone in American politics agree on. From far left to far right.
They don't even need to - both Ariane and some Chinese companies have published plans to build clones of F9. See Ariane Themis.
Then you have Starship - which is, as an expendable, already cheaper than Ariane 6 per flight!
The problem is that nearly all space launch systems are "National Champions" and are about subsiding a national launch capability and putting jobs in the right places. This is how you get to Ariane 6 *costing* more than $100 million a launch (unsubsidised). F9 now *costs* between $20-28 million.
The secret bit is the software that enables the landings, that’s the real SpaceX IP. Anyone can build their simple-ish rocket, but no-one else can land it on a 100mx100m barge in the middle of the ocean.
The suicide burn* algorithm isn't that hard to figure out.
The paper is by the SpaceX guy who led the team for the landing project.
*It's called that because the F9 has a thrust to weight of more than 1 on landing. So it can't hover - if it carried on thrusting, it would starting climbing back into the sky.. So, instead, it heads for the ground at a velocity that means, when it is slowing down, zero velocity just happens to be at zero feet.
There’s a massive difference between understanding something, and being able to engineer something to compete with it.
I want to watch a space Formula 1, where every weekend ten teams compete to bring the cheapest LEO rocket to the party.
With Max Verstappens rocket barging the other ones out of the sky....
However, that's simply about *what* to say; Biden's problem is also what he's saying and how he's saying it. Introducing Zelensky as Putin or confusing Harris's name with Trump's is just basic factual stuff you can't rehearse lines for - indeed, if you can't get the name right of key allies and colleagues, how can you be relied on to get anything more complex right?
He did though, did you see his answer on Israel/Palestine ? He's undoubtedly the most qualified US candidate for that particular issue - his answer was very very good.
It's not just getting things right once; it's getting them right every time. Failure to do that now simply adds to the narrative.
Plus, it's not just 'is he up to it now' but 'will he be up to it in January 2025', or 2026 or 2027 and so on. His physical and mental decline is obvious and it's unrealistic to expect it not get any worse.
And, as long as Democrats are covering up and excusing Biden's inadequacy, it leaves them no space to attack Trump for his own mental shortcomings.
Chinese don't miss a trick. Sell the pre-cusors to the Mexican, then offer to launder the proceeds of crimes...
As do UK, American, Russian, Indian, Japanese, Swiss brokers too. And a fair few from small islands too. It would be fairly amazing if any significant economy or financial centre didn't have such actors. Hundreds of billions might be a story.
FT report is saying the Chinese are rapidly becoming THE brokers. Hawala system has been widely used in the past to get it to Saudi / Dubai (there was the story of the Deutsche Bank lady who got sacked after she raised the issue that a branch had expensed wheelbarrows as so many customers were requiring a way to move large amount of cash to their vehicles).
Chinese population and economy is approx 18% of the worlds, so of course their share of organised crime and laundering is significant.
“Biden outperforms Trump on whether either candidate has the character to be President & by more than two to one, Americans are more concerned about a president who lies than they are about someone who is too old to serve” -NPR/PBS/Marist National Poll
That’s actually an interesting one. There are a number of spats between Germany and France in the economic sphere at the moment. And never forget the German worship of sound money.
For example, days before the first launch of Ariane 6, Eumetsat cancelled a planned launch with Ariane 6, moving it to the cheaper and proven SpaceX F9.
On the face of it an arguable decision - the satellite is unique and expensive and it would have been the first flight of that configuration of Ariane 6. When originally booked it would have flown years after A6 went into service. But A6 was delayed. And delayed.
But Ariane is seen as a French controlled EU champion. To the the French this is something like treason.
Worse, the vote by the controlling countries in Eumetsat was everyone vs France. Germany has orchestrated the votes before the meeting to get a 14-1 result.
The single biggest question in space flight at the moment, is who exactly is prepared to put in the investment required to prevent a SpaceX monopoly?
The best possible solution is likely to be some international consortium agreeing to pay $$$ to open source the F9 technology on a perpetual basis for low earth orbit, and let Musk and co get on with their ambitions to colonise Mars.
Somewhat amazingly, SpaceX remains a private company.
IMV there's a mahoosive misunderstanding of ESA and Arianespace in the space community - and especially in the sector that thinks space=SpaceX.
The *most* important thing Arianespace gives Europe is independence from the US. There are other factors; jobs; IP; prestige; solid rocket motors; but the main thing is independence.
This is because in the 1970s Germany wanted to launch two comms satellites that were world-beating. And the US agreed to launch them, as long as they were not used for commercial purposes. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie ). Europe does not want to be trapped in that situation again.
But something unusual happened with Ariane 4, and especially 5 - it was cheap. This led it to getting a large part of the commercial launch market. This was a nice-to-have; but it was not the *reason* to have a launcher. Even with zero commercial launch contracts, Arianespace will exist.
I'd also argue that Ariane 6 is good enough for the internal market ESA needs to service.
Listening to some people, you'd think ESA and Arianespace are stupid. This is wrong. They've just got a different worldview.
In the age of cheaper launch, Ariane 6 is the wrong answer. The head of SES told them, back in 2014. As did a number of the Ariane partners. But the French demanded solid boosters. The Germans a hydrolox core.
They have tried to buy off complaints with Themis and Ariane Next. And then slow rolled both projects - almost to the point of extinction.
Ariane has even complained about the small amounts of money that have been handed out to European rocket startups - they actually said "that should be our money".
That sorta proves my point. Ariane 6 is not the answer to 'cheaper launch' because cheaper launch is not why is exists.
You may argue that it *should* provide cheaper launch; but its reason for being is not really to compete with SpaceX. It is to provide an internal launch system for Europe, and preferably one that is reliable (though the failures of the Vega/Vega-C show that reliability is hard. As does SpaceX's failure overnight).
Because they don't see him as part of the attack for the Ashes and want to give the bowlers they want to use in Aussie time in test cricket.
I love Jimmy, but at the moment he's bowling at players who would struggle in the second division of country cricket. Sometimes in sport you need to be ruthless.
“Biden outperforms Trump on whether either candidate has the character to be President & by more than two to one, Americans are more concerned about a president who lies than they are about someone who is too old to serve” -NPR/PBS/Marist National Poll
“Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and Gretchen Whitmer do not improve the Democrats’ chances against Trump.”
That tweet is some serious cherry picking / spinning of the poll. The character question isn't really the issue and even then Biden isn't exactly smashing it (it is just Trump is worse).
On the key question about mental fitness it again finds huge proportion think Biden isn't fit to serve again.
The overall takeaway is the US population thinks both are turds.
the Labour government has started its search for a new border security commander – a plan it trumpeted in the election as its answer to the migration crisis (despite the job already existing). The role has been advertised at £140,000-£200,000, with a very healthy 27% pension, and location is described as ‘flexible’:
“Flexible: including, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Peterborough, Manchester, Solihull, Sheffield, Croydon and London. Regular travel to London (if based nationally) and overseas will be required.”
As this is such a high priority I would have thought the government would want them based in London full time.
Should they not be embedded at smugglers cove?
Zooming around the Channel in a fast boat, blackened face, knife between teeth?
So, we need a Boarder Force, not a Border Force? Take the battle out into the channel and swing across the rigging on to the migrant boats, taking all the plunder migrants with essential skills and making the rest walk the plank return to France?
That’s actually an interesting one. There are a number of spats between Germany and France in the economic sphere at the moment. And never forget the German worship of sound money.
For example, days before the first launch of Ariane 6, Eumetsat cancelled a planned launch with Ariane 6, moving it to the cheaper and proven SpaceX F9.
On the face of it an arguable decision - the satellite is unique and expensive and it would have been the first flight of that configuration of Ariane 6. When originally booked it would have flown years after A6 went into service. But A6 was delayed. And delayed.
But Ariane is seen as a French controlled EU champion. To the the French this is something like treason.
Worse, the vote by the controlling countries in Eumetsat was everyone vs France. Germany has orchestrated the votes before the meeting to get a 14-1 result.
The single biggest question in space flight at the moment, is who exactly is prepared to put in the investment required to prevent a SpaceX monopoly?
The best possible solution is likely to be some international consortium agreeing to pay $$$ to open source the F9 technology on a perpetual basis for low earth orbit, and let Musk and co get on with their ambitions to colonise Mars.
Somewhat amazingly, SpaceX remains a private company.
IMV there's a mahoosive misunderstanding of ESA and Arianespace in the space community - and especially in the sector that thinks space=SpaceX.
The *most* important thing Arianespace gives Europe is independence from the US. There are other factors; jobs; IP; prestige; solid rocket motors; but the main thing is independence.
This is because in the 1970s Germany wanted to launch two comms satellites that were world-beating. And the US agreed to launch them, as long as they were not used for commercial purposes. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie ). Europe does not want to be trapped in that situation again.
But something unusual happened with Ariane 4, and especially 5 - it was cheap. This led it to getting a large part of the commercial launch market. This was a nice-to-have; but it was not the *reason* to have a launcher. Even with zero commercial launch contracts, Arianespace will exist.
I'd also argue that Ariane 6 is good enough for the internal market ESA needs to service.
Listening to some people, you'd think ESA and Arianespace are stupid. This is wrong. They've just got a different worldview.
In the age of cheaper launch, Ariane 6 is the wrong answer. The head of SES told them, back in 2014. As did a number of the Ariane partners. But the French demanded solid boosters. The Germans a hydrolox core.
They have tried to buy off complaints with Themis and Ariane Next. And then slow rolled both projects - almost to the point of extinction.
Ariane has even complained about the small amounts of money that have been handed out to European rocket startups - they actually said "that should be our money".
That sorta proves my point. Ariane 6 is not the answer to 'cheaper launch' because cheaper launch is not why is exists.
You may argue that it *should* provide cheaper launch; but its reason for being is not really to compete with SpaceX. It is to provide an internal launch system for Europe, and preferably one that is reliable (though the failures of the Vega/Vega-C show that reliability is hard. As does SpaceX's failure overnight).
The problem with that is that the Germans are constantly refusing to pay the premium for Ariane 6 - see a number of decisions, of which the Eumetsat is just the latest.
The problem was pointed out when the design decision for Ariane 6 was being taken - the competing all liquid concept was blocked by the French.
It shows the toxicity of Trump that the polls show a close race.
The problem is there’s another debate on the 10th September and it’s hard to imagine Biden doing any better and by that time several swing states will already have printed ballots .
He's still not Trump. And if he was to win and get replaced by Harris, she's also not Trump. And not Trump is a vote winner for a lot of people.
(FWIW I think he should be replaced - Harris/ A N Other are also not Trump - but I do think the above is true. Versus e.g. Haley, his polling would surely be in freefall)
Simon Schama @simon_schama · 4h Brushing off the opposition to Biden continuing as presmptive nominee as "elite" opinion is absurd as poll after poll shows 70% plus of public feels he is too old for the presidency
The Democrats need urgently to publish polls showing how old is too old. As an unrelated matter, when was Donald Trump born?
It's not really 'too old'; it's too infirm, which is related to age but not not directly so. There's no magic number.
That said, Biden is already older than every leader of every G7 country since WW2 apart from Konrad Adenauer (who was arguably a special case, though still capable at 82). There's surely a reason that no others have served so late in life.
A useless cricket fact I find mildly interesting is that Mike Atherton is the only England player to have appeared in test matches in the 80s, 90s, and noughties.
That’s actually an interesting one. There are a number of spats between Germany and France in the economic sphere at the moment. And never forget the German worship of sound money.
For example, days before the first launch of Ariane 6, Eumetsat cancelled a planned launch with Ariane 6, moving it to the cheaper and proven SpaceX F9.
On the face of it an arguable decision - the satellite is unique and expensive and it would have been the first flight of that configuration of Ariane 6. When originally booked it would have flown years after A6 went into service. But A6 was delayed. And delayed.
But Ariane is seen as a French controlled EU champion. To the the French this is something like treason.
Worse, the vote by the controlling countries in Eumetsat was everyone vs France. Germany has orchestrated the votes before the meeting to get a 14-1 result.
The single biggest question in space flight at the moment, is who exactly is prepared to put in the investment required to prevent a SpaceX monopoly?
The best possible solution is likely to be some international consortium agreeing to pay $$$ to open source the F9 technology on a perpetual basis for low earth orbit, and let Musk and co get on with their ambitions to colonise Mars.
Somewhat amazingly, SpaceX remains a private company.
IMV there's a mahoosive misunderstanding of ESA and Arianespace in the space community - and especially in the sector that thinks space=SpaceX.
The *most* important thing Arianespace gives Europe is independence from the US. There are other factors; jobs; IP; prestige; solid rocket motors; but the main thing is independence.
This is because in the 1970s Germany wanted to launch two comms satellites that were world-beating. And the US agreed to launch them, as long as they were not used for commercial purposes. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie ). Europe does not want to be trapped in that situation again.
But something unusual happened with Ariane 4, and especially 5 - it was cheap. This led it to getting a large part of the commercial launch market. This was a nice-to-have; but it was not the *reason* to have a launcher. Even with zero commercial launch contracts, Arianespace will exist.
I'd also argue that Ariane 6 is good enough for the internal market ESA needs to service.
Listening to some people, you'd think ESA and Arianespace are stupid. This is wrong. They've just got a different worldview.
In the age of cheaper launch, Ariane 6 is the wrong answer. The head of SES told them, back in 2014. As did a number of the Ariane partners. But the French demanded solid boosters. The Germans a hydrolox core.
They have tried to buy off complaints with Themis and Ariane Next. And then slow rolled both projects - almost to the point of extinction.
Ariane has even complained about the small amounts of money that have been handed out to European rocket startups - they actually said "that should be our money".
That sorta proves my point. Ariane 6 is not the answer to 'cheaper launch' because cheaper launch is not why is exists.
You may argue that it *should* provide cheaper launch; but its reason for being is not really to compete with SpaceX. It is to provide an internal launch system for Europe, and preferably one that is reliable (though the failures of the Vega/Vega-C show that reliability is hard. As does SpaceX's failure overnight).
The problem with that is that the Germans are constantly refusing to pay the premium for Ariane 6 - see a number of decisions, of which the Eumetsat is just the latest.
The problem was pointed out when the design decision for Ariane 6 was being taken - the competing all liquid concept was blocked by the French.
Pretty much every European procurement has had exactly the same problem.
The US had the same problem too, until they decided to outsource the capability rather than micromanage the project. So now we have SpaceX.
Because they don't see him as part of the attack for the Ashes and want to give the bowlers they want to use in Aussie time in test cricket.
I love Jimmy, but at the moment he's bowling at players who would struggle in the second division of country cricket. Sometimes in sport you need to be ruthless.
I wouldn't be picking Woakes on that criteria either. He is 35 now and never done well away from home.
Some anti-Trumpers may be overplaying a "highjacking" attack on a vehicle-with-security used by SCOTUS Obama-appointed (ie not Trumpite) Judge Sotomayor. Some are trying to blame Trump already.
He had a handgun with afaics a bump stock, and the US Marshals shot him when he pulled it.
The attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer was imo correctly viewed as Trump-inspired. This one - I'm not so sure.
That’s actually an interesting one. There are a number of spats between Germany and France in the economic sphere at the moment. And never forget the German worship of sound money.
For example, days before the first launch of Ariane 6, Eumetsat cancelled a planned launch with Ariane 6, moving it to the cheaper and proven SpaceX F9.
On the face of it an arguable decision - the satellite is unique and expensive and it would have been the first flight of that configuration of Ariane 6. When originally booked it would have flown years after A6 went into service. But A6 was delayed. And delayed.
But Ariane is seen as a French controlled EU champion. To the the French this is something like treason.
Worse, the vote by the controlling countries in Eumetsat was everyone vs France. Germany has orchestrated the votes before the meeting to get a 14-1 result.
The single biggest question in space flight at the moment, is who exactly is prepared to put in the investment required to prevent a SpaceX monopoly?
The best possible solution is likely to be some international consortium agreeing to pay $$$ to open source the F9 technology on a perpetual basis for low earth orbit, and let Musk and co get on with their ambitions to colonise Mars.
Somewhat amazingly, SpaceX remains a private company.
IMV there's a mahoosive misunderstanding of ESA and Arianespace in the space community - and especially in the sector that thinks space=SpaceX.
The *most* important thing Arianespace gives Europe is independence from the US. There are other factors; jobs; IP; prestige; solid rocket motors; but the main thing is independence.
This is because in the 1970s Germany wanted to launch two comms satellites that were world-beating. And the US agreed to launch them, as long as they were not used for commercial purposes. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie ). Europe does not want to be trapped in that situation again.
But something unusual happened with Ariane 4, and especially 5 - it was cheap. This led it to getting a large part of the commercial launch market. This was a nice-to-have; but it was not the *reason* to have a launcher. Even with zero commercial launch contracts, Arianespace will exist.
I'd also argue that Ariane 6 is good enough for the internal market ESA needs to service.
Listening to some people, you'd think ESA and Arianespace are stupid. This is wrong. They've just got a different worldview.
In the age of cheaper launch, Ariane 6 is the wrong answer. The head of SES told them, back in 2014. As did a number of the Ariane partners. But the French demanded solid boosters. The Germans a hydrolox core.
They have tried to buy off complaints with Themis and Ariane Next. And then slow rolled both projects - almost to the point of extinction.
Ariane has even complained about the small amounts of money that have been handed out to European rocket startups - they actually said "that should be our money".
That sorta proves my point. Ariane 6 is not the answer to 'cheaper launch' because cheaper launch is not why is exists.
You may argue that it *should* provide cheaper launch; but its reason for being is not really to compete with SpaceX. It is to provide an internal launch system for Europe, and preferably one that is reliable (though the failures of the Vega/Vega-C show that reliability is hard. As does SpaceX's failure overnight).
The problem with that is that the Germans are constantly refusing to pay the premium for Ariane 6 - see a number of decisions, of which the Eumetsat is just the latest.
The problem was pointed out when the design decision for Ariane 6 was being taken - the competing all liquid concept was blocked by the French.
Pretty much every European procurement has had exactly the same problem.
The US had the same problem too, until they decided to outsource the capability rather than micromanage the project. So now we have SpaceX.
Many government procurements are the same way - see AJAX. Crap and expensive. But jobs....
Ariane has dropped the ball by not pushing Themis and Ariane Next harder. Fortunately, it looks as if multiple startups may come through across Europe.
1) Campaign finance. Only Harris can simply go forward with the money raised so far. However, the ticket goes from Biden/Harris to Harris/?
American campaign finance law is extremely lax is some ways and extremely proscriptive in others. Even if it is Harris taking over the ticket there will be plenty of ways for lawyers to interfere. And tie up the campaign in allegations of illegality. Given the GOP hard right has pushed judges into the system (not just the Supreme Court), you can bet on some eye bending judgements - "This is illegal because it is done by a Democrat"....
If it isn't Harris, then all the money has to go back and be re-donated, probably. Orchestrating that will be fun. Plus all kinds of legal challenges are possible (see above)
2) Harris. It looks like she would lose slightly worse than Biden. There isn't a challenger who stands out as better than Biden. Even now.
Trump seems very clear that he wants a re-run vs Biden. Which in a way makes sense - very narrow last time and with Biden off his game, he has a known opponent. Plus, for Trump, there is the revenge aspect of defeating the man who defeated him.
So the Dems would be backing (probably Harris) as an 52 card pickup game - hope that between the turmoil and the occasion, their new pick would soar in the polls.
It's no longer true that Harris is behind Biden in a match up against Trump. Some polls still have her polling worse than Biden, others have her polling better. Overall there's nothing in it between them at the moment.
That's now though. In a scenario where Harris was the legitimate nominee and the Democrats were focused on promoting her not the sitting President, Harris would surely get a boost, just as pretty well any other potential nominee would. That should be a pretty legitimate expectation, not the outside hope that you infer. And as for Biden, there's an enormous risk that once the campaign heats up in intensity he'll bomb again and the polling will move further to reflect that.
So basically on your two points: 1. Campaign Finance - Not a problem if Harris is the nominee. 2. Harris's polling - Bound to improve and improve on where Biden is even currently, let alone where Biden might be after a second car crash debate.
1. Would still have a lot of issues. It's America - lawsuits would start in 15 seconds. 2. Maaaaybe. And there hasn't been a poll suggesting Harris could actually win. Just lose less badly. Check out how she polls in the swing state.....
I've tried checking polls in swing states. I can only find one. SoCal yesterday in Virgina - level with Trump. That's it. It's also an "All" poll rather than a RV (Registered Voter) or LV (Likely Voter) so it favours Trump. More Trump voters are unregistered or unlikely to vote than Democrats.
So no real evidence so far. And if she was the official nominee with all Democrats supporting her and many public appearances, then I suspect her ratings would rise.
“Biden outperforms Trump on whether either candidate has the character to be President & by more than two to one, Americans are more concerned about a president who lies than they are about someone who is too old to serve” -NPR/PBS/Marist National Poll
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
1) Campaign finance. Only Harris can simply go forward with the money raised so far. However, the ticket goes from Biden/Harris to Harris/?
American campaign finance law is extremely lax is some ways and extremely proscriptive in others. Even if it is Harris taking over the ticket there will be plenty of ways for lawyers to interfere. And tie up the campaign in allegations of illegality. Given the GOP hard right has pushed judges into the system (not just the Supreme Court), you can bet on some eye bending judgements - "This is illegal because it is done by a Democrat"....
If it isn't Harris, then all the money has to go back and be re-donated, probably. Orchestrating that will be fun. Plus all kinds of legal challenges are possible (see above)
2) Harris. It looks like she would lose slightly worse than Biden. There isn't a challenger who stands out as better than Biden. Even now.
Trump seems very clear that he wants a re-run vs Biden. Which in a way makes sense - very narrow last time and with Biden off his game, he has a known opponent. Plus, for Trump, there is the revenge aspect of defeating the man who defeated him.
So the Dems would be backing (probably Harris) as an 52 card pickup game - hope that between the turmoil and the occasion, their new pick would soar in the polls.
It's no longer true that Harris is behind Biden in a match up against Trump. Some polls still have her polling worse than Biden, others have her polling better. Overall there's nothing in it between them at the moment.
That's now though. In a scenario where Harris was the legitimate nominee and the Democrats were focused on promoting her not the sitting President, Harris would surely get a boost, just as pretty well any other potential nominee would. That should be a pretty legitimate expectation, not the outside hope that you infer. And as for Biden, there's an enormous risk that once the campaign heats up in intensity he'll bomb again and the polling will move further to reflect that.
So basically on your two points: 1. Campaign Finance - Not a problem if Harris is the nominee. 2. Harris's polling - Bound to improve and improve on where Biden is even currently, let alone where Biden might be after a second car crash debate.
1. Would still have a lot of issues. It's America - lawsuits would start in 15 seconds. 2. Maaaaybe. And there hasn't been a poll suggesting Harris could actually win. Just lose less badly. Check out how she polls in the swing state.....
I've tried checking polls in swing states. I can only find one. SoCal yesterday in Virgina - level with Trump. That's it. It's also an "All" poll rather than a RV (Registered Voter) or LV (Likely Voter) so it favours Trump. More Trump voters are unregistered or unlikely to vote than Democrats.
So no real evidence so far. And if she was the official nominee with all Democrats supporting her and many public appearances, then I suspect her ratings would rise.
The Americans have saddled themselves with two semi-geratrics. One with dementia, and the other one a professional nutter. How did they manage this? I'm in my mid-seventies, so it's not an anti-age thing. Kamala Harris, a youngish, black female seemed to be the perfect antidote to Trump. Why isn't she rated?
The Republicans have chosen Trump instead of Haley, and that was bad enough, but they might even get away with it.
That’s actually an interesting one. There are a number of spats between Germany and France in the economic sphere at the moment. And never forget the German worship of sound money.
For example, days before the first launch of Ariane 6, Eumetsat cancelled a planned launch with Ariane 6, moving it to the cheaper and proven SpaceX F9.
On the face of it an arguable decision - the satellite is unique and expensive and it would have been the first flight of that configuration of Ariane 6. When originally booked it would have flown years after A6 went into service. But A6 was delayed. And delayed.
But Ariane is seen as a French controlled EU champion. To the the French this is something like treason.
Worse, the vote by the controlling countries in Eumetsat was everyone vs France. Germany has orchestrated the votes before the meeting to get a 14-1 result.
The single biggest question in space flight at the moment, is who exactly is prepared to put in the investment required to prevent a SpaceX monopoly?
The best possible solution is likely to be some international consortium agreeing to pay $$$ to open source the F9 technology on a perpetual basis for low earth orbit, and let Musk and co get on with their ambitions to colonise Mars.
Somewhat amazingly, SpaceX remains a private company.
IMV there's a mahoosive misunderstanding of ESA and Arianespace in the space community - and especially in the sector that thinks space=SpaceX.
The *most* important thing Arianespace gives Europe is independence from the US. There are other factors; jobs; IP; prestige; solid rocket motors; but the main thing is independence.
This is because in the 1970s Germany wanted to launch two comms satellites that were world-beating. And the US agreed to launch them, as long as they were not used for commercial purposes. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie ). Europe does not want to be trapped in that situation again.
But something unusual happened with Ariane 4, and especially 5 - it was cheap. This led it to getting a large part of the commercial launch market. This was a nice-to-have; but it was not the *reason* to have a launcher. Even with zero commercial launch contracts, Arianespace will exist.
I'd also argue that Ariane 6 is good enough for the internal market ESA needs to service.
Listening to some people, you'd think ESA and Arianespace are stupid. This is wrong. They've just got a different worldview.
In the age of cheaper launch, Ariane 6 is the wrong answer. The head of SES told them, back in 2014. As did a number of the Ariane partners. But the French demanded solid boosters. The Germans a hydrolox core.
They have tried to buy off complaints with Themis and Ariane Next. And then slow rolled both projects - almost to the point of extinction.
Ariane has even complained about the small amounts of money that have been handed out to European rocket startups - they actually said "that should be our money".
That sorta proves my point. Ariane 6 is not the answer to 'cheaper launch' because cheaper launch is not why is exists.
You may argue that it *should* provide cheaper launch; but its reason for being is not really to compete with SpaceX. It is to provide an internal launch system for Europe, and preferably one that is reliable (though the failures of the Vega/Vega-C show that reliability is hard. As does SpaceX's failure overnight).
The problem with that is that the Germans are constantly refusing to pay the premium for Ariane 6 - see a number of decisions, of which the Eumetsat is just the latest.
The problem was pointed out when the design decision for Ariane 6 was being taken - the competing all liquid concept was blocked by the French.
Pretty much every European procurement has had exactly the same problem.
The US had the same problem too, until they decided to outsource the capability rather than micromanage the project. So now we have SpaceX.
Many government procurements are the same way - see AJAX. Crap and expensive. But jobs....
Ariane has dropped the ball by not pushing Themis and Ariane Next harder. Fortunately, it looks as if multiple startups may come through across Europe.
There's an interesting point here: *some* of those launchers use, oddly enough, majority European components. As if that was a requirement of the funding, Whilst one (and I think two) are firmly in with the USA oldspace crowd.
“Biden outperforms Trump on whether either candidate has the character to be President & by more than two to one, Americans are more concerned about a president who lies than they are about someone who is too old to serve” -NPR/PBS/Marist National Poll
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
No, they're comparing like with like, in saying it's the lowest turnout. And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation. It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
the Labour government has started its search for a new border security commander – a plan it trumpeted in the election as its answer to the migration crisis (despite the job already existing). The role has been advertised at £140,000-£200,000, with a very healthy 27% pension, and location is described as ‘flexible’:
“Flexible: including, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Durham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Peterborough, Manchester, Solihull, Sheffield, Croydon and London. Regular travel to London (if based nationally) and overseas will be required.”
Nothing wrong with that. The people "doing the work" need to be paid well to get good people. We'd get the same politicians if they were paid 10 times more.
Alan Sugar once said the reason government procurement is a mess is they can't pay the seven-figure salaries to compete with the private sector.
Yup. Government should hire a bunch of seriously well-paid procurement guys, who are personally incentivised to screw the private contractors to the ground.
What are their KPI's, incentivise them through bonuses related to hitting KPI's
The reason Americans are feeling poor is not just because inflation is not keeping up with wages but because inflation is not keeping up with inflation.
And that is before you get into the issue of the methodology changes since 1990 which have, according to some widely quoted sources resulted in US CPI being significantly lower (like half the amount it would have been) if the methodology had remained unchanged.
Just a 1% difference compounded over 20 years on pay, benefits and pensions would have supressed all three significantly on such a timescale.
Interesting. Are our inflation figures probably more reliable?
There's an issue that inflation figures are themselves used to set various mandated price increases (Pensions, rail fares, solar tarriffs etc) . It's in the gov'ts (And general - though not the recipients) interest to undercook true inflation.
Because they don't see him as part of the attack for the Ashes and want to give the bowlers they want to use in Aussie time in test cricket.
I love Jimmy, but at the moment he's bowling at players who would struggle in the second division of country cricket. Sometimes in sport you need to be ruthless.
I wouldn't be picking Woakes on that criteria either. He is 35 now and never done well away from home.
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
Percentage of adult population, rather than percentage of those registered on the electoral register.
Adult citizen population aiui.
52% would have been the likely turnout figure Labour's proposal for Automatic Voter Registration was already in place (a bit higher as the mere fact of getting a polling card would have triggered some who are currently not registered to vote).
AVR is a good policy though. The key challenge then would be how to drive up turnout levels. A closer race, PR, better ethical standards from politicians, would help. I would enter every voter* in a £10m free draw too (*everyone who is marked as having attended a polling station or returned a postal vote).
“Biden outperforms Trump on whether either candidate has the character to be President & by more than two to one, Americans are more concerned about a president who lies than they are about someone who is too old to serve” -NPR/PBS/Marist National Poll
And let's see how actual vs hypothetical candidate Harris does
I agree. Polls are all over the place. And even if they weren't, trying to use hypotheticals to write off Harris and literally every other conceivable candidate that the Democrats could use to replace Biden would be a fools errand.
So it's best just to ignore the polls on potential alternatives when trying to answer the obvious questions: - Is the best candidate that the Democrats can come up with really a now obviously senile 81 year old who's not going to be capable of lasting the next 4 months never mind another 4 years after that? and - When the only opposition is such a patently flawed Republican challenger, why isn't the Democratic candidate wiping the floor with him?
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
No, they're comparing like with like, in saying it's the lowest turnout. And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation. It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
No, I was saying was both it? Those who were unregistered and those that were ineligible. You can't really include the latter, especially given the large amount of immigration in the past 5 years.
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
Because millions of people aren't registered to vote. If the population is around 68 million, there should be about 51 million people aged 18+ but there are only about 48 million on the electoral register.
How have they got 52% and the official figure was 60%. Is this down to overseas UK nationals voted a lot?
"However, the IPPR said the figures are even lower as a share of the whole adult population"
Think non-citizens....
Arhh so they are including those that aren't registered and those that can't vote as not eligible. So that's nonsense then, you certainly can't just include those not eligible to vote.
No, they're comparing like with like, in saying it's the lowest turnout. And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation. It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
The figure the Electoral Reform Society quote is that only 86% of the eligible population were correctly registered in 2022.
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
LOL. X will just close all of their EU-based offices - perhaps relocate to London - and dare the EU to actually try and block their website.
Blue checks never meant trustworthy in that sense anyway. The point was to verify the identity of an account purporting to be someone notable.
I mean pre-Elon twitter was a mess because it started out being "we checked this account is who is looks like it is" but then when they wanted to punish somebody for posting racism or whatever they took the mark away, turning it into some kind of approval thing.
But when Elon inherited this mess and decided he wanted to stop showing whether he checked who you were at all and instead show "someone who paid twitter, most likely either a moron or a scammer", the straightforward thing would have been to use a different icon for the new thing?
I am still very, very skeptical of Harris polling.
She is not a popular Vice President. But the whole tone of her candidacy, and therefore perception, potentially changes overnight if she is elevated to the Presidency in the coming weeks.
I am still very, very skeptical of Harris polling.
She is not a popular Vice President. But the whole tone of her candidacy, and therefore perception, potentially changes overnight if she is elevated to the Presidency in the coming weeks.
Presidency, yes. Nominee... maybe? But it's not really clear whether the imaginary Joe Biden who will give up on the nomination on the advice of the kind of people who told him to leave it to Hillary Clinton would also be prepared to give up on the presidency.
That said, I'm not sure there's a mechanism to make him to unless he wants to go and decides to go. Unless his thousands of delegates all rat on him at the convention.
So perhaps he just doesn't even if the everyone else wants him to.
Why should he go though ? What is the imperative for him to. As HYUFD points out he polls better against the Trumpdozer than any other likely candidate.
The time for him to have stepped down was before going through the rounds of primaries and caucuses.
Nominate a better VP, stand for election, beat the Trumpdozer then stand down is a scenario.
The problem is, is that you're looking at it from a 'just defeat Trump' point of view - which might be possible.
But that isn't what US Presidential elections are asking. They are asking, "Who do you feel is best to run our country for the next four years?"
The answer to that question is most likely not Trump or Biden but at the moment that is what is being offered.
What is now going through the minds of every reasonable voter (ie, not the 'donkey with the red rosset sort' who are largely irrelevent to this decision) is:
Is Biden mentally sharp anymore? It appears he isn't. Do I really want him being President for the next four years when it's very likely 12 months from now he won't remember his own name, let alone Zelensky's?
There are two equally reasonable and rational conclusions from this: 1. Yes. Despite everything wrong with Biden, Trump is a fundamental threat to US democracy and seeing him back in the White House would mean the end of the United States - I can't risk it - I'll vote Biden and hope he's eased out in 2025 anyway to be replaced by Harris; OR 2. No. In all good conscious, I can't vote for Biden. He's no longer able to do this and the Democrats themselves are proving unable to replace him. What if they let him win and never replace him and we have a senile dementia-ridden old man running the country for four years! Despite the possible danger from a Trump win, that's a risk I'm willing to take against a risk I'm not willing to take. I'll vote Trump.
I strongly suspect that more and more American's are moving from (1) to (2).
Unless something comes up to show that Trump has also lost it, I think Trump will beat Biden easily now.
Europe therefore needs to plan to assume Trump will be President, and plan to assume the US will leave NATO and likely stop all support to Ukraine very soon - possibly even lending support to Russia(!)
You might be right about voters moving away from the President, and that is certainly what we'd expect, but curiously, so far polling suggests Biden's infirmity is already priced in. Obviously we've not seen if yesterday's gaffe-fest has moved the dial.
The trouble is: (1) If Biden is nominated this is going to happen again and again during the campaign (2) At the moment it's not in Trump's interest to attack Biden on this issue, because he wants Biden to be nominated. If Biden is nominated he is going to be attacked mercilessly by the Republicans.
I am still very, very skeptical of Harris polling.
She is not a popular Vice President. But the whole tone of her candidacy, and therefore perception, potentially changes overnight if she is elevated to the Presidency in the coming weeks.
Comments
3,926 prisoners were returned in 2023, including 1,453 to Albania and 1,924 to the EU. The number going back to the EU is about half what it was before Brexit - we can no longer deport prisoners with EU Settled Status, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
The countries not covered include Jamaica (around 400 prisoners), Pakistan (~300), Somalia (~250), and Nigeria (~200). It's definitely worth seeking agreements with them, but isn't going to solve the current capacity crisis.
However, that's simply about *what* to say; Biden's problem is also what he's saying and how he's saying it. Introducing Zelensky as Putin or confusing Harris's name with Trump's is just basic factual stuff you can't rehearse lines for - indeed, if you can't get the name right of key allies and colleagues, how can you be relied on to get anything more complex right?
There will undoubtedly be more such incidents over coming months if Biden insists on continuing to retain the Democrat nomination; he cannot hide and he cannot get things right that he needs to get right. His capacity is now a well-embedded narrative so the focus will be on his slips - and he'll keep making them not least because he's always made them, except now he won't be given any leeway. But of course he's now making a lot more.
Through formal processes there's no way to remove the nomination: the delegates are elected and the numbers are his. But informal pressure - public or private - can be enough. My guess is it will have to be public: he's too stubborn and probably to isolated for private messages to persuade him. Will enough senior Democrats be willing to go public? On that question may hang the Republic.
Think non-citizens....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjGIp7kdS6E
Chinese don't miss a trick. Sell the pre-cusors to the Mexican, then offer to launder the proceeds of crimes...
The career people in post will claim that it's only until the election is over. And the Soviet Union did it for years, having the entire Politburo standing around looking like stuffed dummies. Biden can no longer do anything unscripted, Starmer will look back on his verdict on Biden with embarrassment.
Yet even the US politburo can't keep the pretence up much longer. How can he be allowed in a TV studio? The poor bloke should be allowed to retire.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWwh1NoNM_k&list=PLXhTIuSAy5EWK7C50ia54fjOrHDZ99rgH&index=13
See also- http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnshuttle.html
- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saturn-int-20-saturn-shuttle-flyback-s-ic-idea.5915/
EnjoySimon Schama
@simon_schama
·
4h
Brushing off the opposition to Biden continuing as presmptive nominee as "elite" opinion is absurd as poll after poll shows 70% plus of public feels he is too old for the presidency
https://x.com/simon_schama/status/1811644523555987629
https://x.com/maristpoll/status/1811703565586452986
Plus, it's not just 'is he up to it now' but 'will he be up to it in January 2025', or 2026 or 2027 and so on. His physical and mental decline is obvious and it's unrealistic to expect it not get any worse.
And, as long as Democrats are covering up and excusing Biden's inadequacy, it leaves them no space to attack Trump for his own mental shortcomings.
Despite a series of cataclysmic political events, including Trump’s felony convictions and Biden’s abysmal debate performance, the race for the White House remains essentially unchanged
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/contest-for-president-still-up-for-grabs/
“Biden outperforms Trump on whether either candidate has the character to be President & by more than two to one, Americans are more concerned about a president who lies than they are about someone who is too old to serve” -NPR/PBS/Marist National Poll
https://x.com/annmarie/status/1811711240051306880
“Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and Gretchen Whitmer do not improve the Democrats’ chances against Trump.”
You may argue that it *should* provide cheaper launch; but its reason for being is not really to compete with SpaceX. It is to provide an internal launch system for Europe, and preferably one that is reliable (though the failures of the Vega/Vega-C show that reliability is hard. As does SpaceX's failure overnight).
I love Jimmy, but at the moment he's bowling at players who would struggle in the second division of country cricket. Sometimes in sport you need to be ruthless.
On the key question about mental fitness it again finds huge proportion think Biden isn't fit to serve again.
The overall takeaway is the US population thinks both are turds.
The problem was pointed out when the design decision for Ariane 6 was being taken - the competing all liquid concept was blocked by the French.
The problem is there’s another debate on the 10th September and it’s hard to imagine Biden doing any better and by that time several swing states will already have printed ballots .
(FWIW I think he should be replaced - Harris/ A N Other are also not Trump - but I do think the above is true. Versus e.g. Haley, his polling would surely be in freefall)
That said, Biden is already older than every leader of every G7 country since WW2 apart from Konrad Adenauer (who was arguably a special case, though still capable at 82). There's surely a reason that no others have served so late in life.
A useless cricket fact I find mildly interesting is that Mike Atherton is the only England player to have appeared in test matches in the 80s, 90s, and noughties.
The US had the same problem too, until they decided to outsource the capability rather than micromanage the project. So now we have SpaceX.
They’ll be impressed.
Some anti-Trumpers may be overplaying a "highjacking" attack on a vehicle-with-security used by SCOTUS Obama-appointed (ie not Trumpite) Judge Sotomayor. Some are trying to blame Trump already.
He had a handgun with afaics a bump stock, and the US Marshals shot him when he pulled it.
The attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer was imo correctly viewed as Trump-inspired. This one - I'm not so sure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1we6xy7q7qo
Ariane has dropped the ball by not pushing Themis and Ariane Next harder. Fortunately, it looks as if multiple startups may come through across Europe.
SoCal yesterday in Virgina - level with Trump. That's it. It's also an "All" poll rather than a RV (Registered Voter) or LV (Likely Voter) so it favours Trump. More Trump voters are unregistered or unlikely to vote than Democrats.
So no real evidence so far. And if she was the official nominee with all Democrats supporting her and many public appearances, then I suspect her ratings would rise.
Oh, by the way, and as I asked of @rcs1000 last night, where’s the post-election donate button? I want to give you £100.
@MrBedfordshire - thanks for your reply yesterday.
Poll in May had her losing against Trump by 8%
The Republicans have chosen Trump instead of Haley, and that was bad enough, but they might even get away with it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4754179-biden-polling-memo-leaked/amp/
And let's see how actual vs hypothetical candidate Harris does
And you're assuming everyone not on the register isn't eligible to have registered - which is also nonsense.
The percentage of people who actually register is also a measure of democratic participation.
It has been falling significantly and steadily for younger people in recent years, Check for yourself:
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered
Two elderly people forced to walk down the middle of the road in Princes Road, Ealing.
It is a screengrab from this vid, from yesterday.
https://x.com/CitizenUddin/status/1811364361006407768
https://x.com/englandcricket/status/1811718624085729679
https://x.com/thierrybreton/status/1811699711591489637
Back in the day, #BlueChecks used to mean trustworthy sources of information✔️🐦
Now with X, our preliminary view is that:
❌They deceive users
❌They infrige #DSA
X has now the right of defence —but if our view is confirmed we will impose fines & require significant changes.
The site donate button, for the hosting costs and the OGH retirement budget.
AVR is a good policy though. The key challenge then would be how to drive up turnout levels. A closer race, PR, better ethical standards from politicians, would help. I would enter every voter* in a £10m free draw too (*everyone who is marked as having attended a polling station or returned a postal vote).
I think the solution will be a fee free Green tick that allows the public to know this is a genuine account.
So it's best just to ignore the polls on potential alternatives when trying to answer the obvious questions:
- Is the best candidate that the Democrats can come up with really a now obviously senile 81 year old who's not going to be capable of lasting the next 4 months never mind another 4 years after that?
and
- When the only opposition is such a patently flawed Republican challenger, why isn't the Democratic candidate wiping the floor with him?
But when Elon inherited this mess and decided he wanted to stop showing whether he checked who you were at all and instead show "someone who paid twitter, most likely either a moron or a scammer", the straightforward thing would have been to use a different icon for the new thing?
She is not a popular Vice President. But the whole tone of her candidacy, and therefore perception, potentially changes overnight if she is elevated to the Presidency in the coming weeks.
All attempts to have the problem dealt with are met with the response that trees are sacred.
These are about 30 years old - nice but not irreplaceable.
(1) If Biden is nominated this is going to happen again and again during the campaign
(2) At the moment it's not in Trump's interest to attack Biden on this issue, because he wants Biden to be nominated. If Biden is nominated he is going to be attacked mercilessly by the Republicans.
I was amazed, when looking at the side, how many of them had played only a handful of tests.