Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
On the specifics of TfL, it's reckoned one journey in every five or six is made without paying. Fare evasion in my part of London is endemic among young men and some others. This costs TfL upwards of £160 million in lost fare revenue.
I suspect there's a law of diminishing returns at work and just as businesses "accept" a percentage of stock lost to shoplifters because the cost of the kind of security needed to prevent all shoplifting is prohibitive, so TfL know the cost of trying to wipe out fare evasion is unaffordable - you'd need 24 hour presence at some stations and there's just no resource.
However, any additional money to Transport for London has to come with the caveat fare evasion has to be tackled ruthlessly and without fear or favour. Recruiting additional revenue inspectors and increasing patrols at known problem stations would be a good start.
Also, how much will the 10% tariff on all imports affect UK exports to the US (which are not insubstantial) ?
Goods exports are about £60bn. Of course, much of that already has tariffs - 10% on cars, for example. As I undestand it, the new 10% would be on top.
Just looked it up: we export more goods to the US than we import. Just.
Look again.
There is a strange feature of UK/US trade. By our figures, we are in surplus, but by their figures, they are in surplus.
US government figures: U.S. goods and services trade with United Kingdom totaled an estimated $295.6 billion in 2022. Exports were $158.2 billion; imports were $137.4 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with United Kingdom was $20.8 billion in 2022. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/united-kingdom
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The evidence is actually that Vance's references to Moslem counties are as much random terms of abuse to be deployed, as they are anything which might approach analysis.
See also, for example:
It's odd that one of Vance's signature lines about how to deal with the American bureaucracy is to subject it to "de-ba’athification," one of the US policies in Iraq that everyone seems to agree was a huge failure.. https://x.com/AASchapiro/status/1813241849374474670
Since Vance thought Trump might be the American Hitler, perhaps the earlier and more successful de-Nazification may be a better model?
As Vance is a convert to Catholicism and Trump seems to have found God big time since being shot, perhaps there is a conversion underway?
You know who else started off as a Catholic?
Madonna? Vance to don a conical bra and simulate masturbation on stage?
If The Donald told him to, he probably would.
Trump does need a new campaign song after the success of YMCA last time.
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
You're starting from a false premise because you assume that the policy is aimed at Russia when it's actually aimed at Western Europe.
They think wealthy Europeans should sort out their own defence because the US can't afford to be committed everywhere globally at once.
That's their excuse. And that is all it is: an excuse. They managed very well to fight in Vietnam whilst having much equipment and many troops protecting Europe. And helping Ukraine properly is a much simpler job than deterring Russia was back then.
The real answer is simple: beat Russia ASAP so we can then concentrate on the other threats. But if Russia continues as it is, then the USA will get swept in eventually - and it will be a much tougher job then.
It's not as if isolationism has worked well for the USA in the past.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
You're starting from a false premise because you assume that the policy is aimed at Russia when it's actually aimed at Western Europe.
They think wealthy Europeans should sort out their own defence because the US can't afford to be committed everywhere globally at once.
Your guy wants Ukraine to become Russian. Time to own that.
The Ukrainian war is in my view still a winnable war. The trouble is the west doesn't appear to want to win it.
Now is the time to accelerate aid to Ukraine, let them hit military and energy targets in Russia and put them in the best possible position come a Trump presidency with a plainly weakened Putin. Pandering to such a figure would make Trump look ridiculous.
I don't imagine Russia could do much more than threaten the Baltics at the moment which Poland might react to themselves. The key is to make sure the Russian economy remains weak so long as the maniac is in power.
Or just invite Ukraine into NATO as some sort of temporary member and ask the Russians to desist whilst that process is ongoing.
Russia would immediately seek a deal, and it'd probably just be Crimea at the longest of necks.
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
You're starting from a false premise because you assume that the policy is aimed at Russia when it's actually aimed at Western Europe.
They think wealthy Europeans should sort out their own defence because the US can't afford to be committed everywhere globally at once.
That's their excuse. And that is all it is: an excuse. They managed very well to fight in Vietnam whilst having much equipment and many troops protecting Europe. And helping Ukraine properly is a much simpler job than deterring Russia was back then.
The real answer is simple: beat Russia ASAP so we can then concentrate on the other threats. But if Russia continues as it is, then the USA will get swept in eventually - and it will be a much tougher job then.
It's not as if isolationism has worked well for the USA in the past.
China is a strategic competitor on a different level to anything the US faced in that era. I don't think you're taking seriously the US's position (not just Trumpites).
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
I see one time excoriator of Trump Tucker Carlson was on stage for his rapturous reception at the RNC. It’s a remarkable factor of Trump world that those who have publicly deplored him to what would usually be the point of no return are now totally on board.
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
You're starting from a false premise because you assume that the policy is aimed at Russia when it's actually aimed at Western Europe.
They think wealthy Europeans should sort out their own defence because the US can't afford to be committed everywhere globally at once.
That's their excuse. And that is all it is: an excuse. They managed very well to fight in Vietnam whilst having much equipment and many troops protecting Europe. And helping Ukraine properly is a much simpler job than deterring Russia was back then.
The real answer is simple: beat Russia ASAP so we can then concentrate on the other threats. But if Russia continues as it is, then the USA will get swept in eventually - and it will be a much tougher job then.
It's not as if isolationism has worked well for the USA in the past.
Indeed. As I mentioned in another thread recently, it is massively in the USA's interests that Europe is economically wealthy but militarily weak. Were European's to convert some of that wealth into independent military capability then that reduces US leverage over Europe.
In case you are wondering WHY Trump picked Vance as his running mate, anti-UKRism is one key reason, methinks.
Putin-pimpers & Trump-fluffers (ditto visa versa) please explain?
How could he be more anti UK than Biden ?
That's a load of pigeon poop.
Biden is the most anti UK Pres in years.
Massive difference between not being an Anglophile on a personal level on the one hand, and espousing policies that are badly misaligned with British interests on the other.
Much better to have a US President who has no great affinity with the UK but shares its outlook on a wide range of issues than the opposite of that.
Utter rubbish. We only share Biden's outlook on a wide range of issues because that's the outlook we're told to share. The argument is entirely a circular one.
I see one time excoriator of Trump Tucker Carlson was on stage for his rapturous reception at the RNC. It’s a remarkable factor of Trump world that those who have publicly deplored him to what would usually be the point of no return are now totally on board.
Of course we have David Lammy.
I think a lot of single celled organisms are rather annoyed at Lammy's progress. Seriously though, hats off to the man. He's gone from really daft, to really quite important. I don't think that progression is undeserved.
Is Vance a popular politician? Not particularly: "Just two years ago, he struggled to raise money during his Senate bid because he attacked the GOP establishment. He underperformed Mr. Trump’s 2020 Ohio margin of victory, and his candidacy required the super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to spend tens of millions more dollars than planned to hold the seat." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/15/vance-vp-trump-republican-convention/
(In the 2016 election, Trump ran behind Republican candidates for the Senate and governor in several key states. I argued at the time that he might have lost, had it not been for a "reverse coattail" effect.)
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
You're starting from a false premise because you assume that the policy is aimed at Russia when it's actually aimed at Western Europe.
They think wealthy Europeans should sort out their own defence because the US can't afford to be committed everywhere globally at once.
That's their excuse. And that is all it is: an excuse. They managed very well to fight in Vietnam whilst having much equipment and many troops protecting Europe. And helping Ukraine properly is a much simpler job than deterring Russia was back then.
The real answer is simple: beat Russia ASAP so we can then concentrate on the other threats. But if Russia continues as it is, then the USA will get swept in eventually - and it will be a much tougher job then.
It's not as if isolationism has worked well for the USA in the past.
China is a strategic competitor on a different level to anything the US faced in that era. I don't think you're taking seriously the US's position (not just Trumpites).
How does enabling a man backed by the Chinese help the US in its conflict with China?
In the absence of US military support and the imposition of US tariffs on European goods, what possible strategic reasons are there for Europe not to seek a rapprochement with China?
I see one time excoriator of Trump Tucker Carlson was on stage for his rapturous reception at the RNC. It’s a remarkable factor of Trump world that those who have publicly deplored him to what would usually be the point of no return are now totally on board.
Of course we have David Lammy.
I think a lot of single celled organisms are rather annoyed at Lammy's progress. Seriously though, hats off to the man. He's gone from really daft, to really quite important. I don't think that progression is undeserved.
I am puzzled that you see the two states as mutually exclusive.
I see one time excoriator of Trump Tucker Carlson was on stage for his rapturous reception at the RNC. It’s a remarkable factor of Trump world that those who have publicly deplored him to what would usually be the point of no return are now totally on board.
Of course we have David Lammy.
I think a lot of single celled organisms are rather annoyed at Lammy's progress. Seriously though, hats off to the man. He's gone from really daft, to really quite important. I don't think that progression is undeserved.
Lammy is daft by his own words. He was a someone who was sensible, got himself a twitter account and then rode the high of stupidity.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
They don't but we do?
That's the joke.
Yes, when I saw the clip of Vance I realized it was a limp attempt at humour. But what struck me is this: does he actually believe Britain has been taken over by an Islamic government and thinks that's a bit of a laugh? Or does he not believe it and was taking the piss out of those who do?
For those of you suffering football withdrawal, Santa Coloma of Andorra, after 17/17 defeats in Europe have triumphed in a penalty shootout in the Champs League first qualifying round. Boris Anton as Southgate’s successor possibly?
I see one time excoriator of Trump Tucker Carlson was on stage for his rapturous reception at the RNC. It’s a remarkable factor of Trump world that those who have publicly deplored him to what would usually be the point of no return are now totally on board.
Of course we have David Lammy.
I think a lot of single celled organisms are rather annoyed at Lammy's progress. Seriously though, hats off to the man. He's gone from really daft, to really quite important. I don't think that progression is undeserved.
Lammy is daft by his own words. He was a someone who was sensible, got himself a twitter account and then rode the high of stupidity.
His Mastermind performance was terrible for somebody who was earmarked for high office
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
You're starting from a false premise because you assume that the policy is aimed at Russia when it's actually aimed at Western Europe.
They think wealthy Europeans should sort out their own defence because the US can't afford to be committed everywhere globally at once.
That's their excuse. And that is all it is: an excuse. They managed very well to fight in Vietnam whilst having much equipment and many troops protecting Europe. And helping Ukraine properly is a much simpler job than deterring Russia was back then.
The real answer is simple: beat Russia ASAP so we can then concentrate on the other threats. But if Russia continues as it is, then the USA will get swept in eventually - and it will be a much tougher job then.
It's not as if isolationism has worked well for the USA in the past.
China is a strategic competitor on a different level to anything the US faced in that era. I don't think you're taking seriously the US's position (not just Trumpites).
How does enabling a man backed by the Chinese help the US in its conflict with China?
In the absence of US military support and the imposition of US tariffs on European goods, what possible strategic reasons are there for Europe not to seek a rapprochement with China?
You should direct the question towards the Biden administration that greenlighted Putin's invasion in the first place by signalling that they would do nothing but impose sanctions and send a limited amount of weapons and was fully expecting Kyiv to fall within days.
Is Vance a popular politician? Not particularly: "Just two years ago, he struggled to raise money during his Senate bid because he attacked the GOP establishment. He underperformed Mr. Trump’s 2020 Ohio margin of victory, and his candidacy required the super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to spend tens of millions more dollars than planned to hold the seat." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/15/vance-vp-trump-republican-convention/
(In the 2016 election, Trump ran behind Republican candidates for the Senate and governor in several key states. I argued at the time that he might have lost, had it not been for a "reverse coattail" effect.)
I posted this article a couple of days ago. Still rings true:
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
They don't but we do?
That's the joke.
Yes, when I saw the clip of Vance I realized it was a limp attempt at humour. But what struck me is this: does he actually believe Britain has been taken over by an Islamic government and thinks that's a bit of a laugh? Or does he not believe it and was taking the piss out of those who do?
If you parse what he said, the bit about Labour was clumsily added on so the joke was supposed to be that we might become an Islamic state before Iran manages to get a nuclear weapon.
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
Trumps primary drive, above all else, is for Putin to succeed.
I see one time excoriator of Trump Tucker Carlson was on stage for his rapturous reception at the RNC. It’s a remarkable factor of Trump world that those who have publicly deplored him to what would usually be the point of no return are now totally on board.
Of course we have David Lammy.
I think a lot of single celled organisms are rather annoyed at Lammy's progress. Seriously though, hats off to the man. He's gone from really daft, to really quite important. I don't think that progression is undeserved.
Lammy is daft by his own words. He was a someone who was sensible, got himself a twitter account and then rode the high of stupidity.
At one point he was hoping to accost Obama in car parks I seem to recall. It's been a long journey for him, and I think he's done with the dodgems path.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Islamist means something different from islamic.
I think Pakistan is considered to be a country influenced by Islamism, Wiki classifies Zia as an Islamist leader.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
They don't but we do?
That's the joke.
Yes, when I saw the clip of Vance I realized it was a limp attempt at humour. But what struck me is this: does he actually believe Britain has been taken over by an Islamic government and thinks that's a bit of a laugh? Or does he not believe it and was taking the piss out of those who do?
If you parse what he said, the bit about Labour was clumsily added on so the joke was supposed to be that we might become an Islamic state before Iran manages to get a nuclear weapon.
"we sort of finally decided maybe it’s actually the UK, since Labour just took over.”
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
You're starting from a false premise because you assume that the policy is aimed at Russia when it's actually aimed at Western Europe.
They think wealthy Europeans should sort out their own defence because the US can't afford to be committed everywhere globally at once.
That's their excuse. And that is all it is: an excuse. They managed very well to fight in Vietnam whilst having much equipment and many troops protecting Europe. And helping Ukraine properly is a much simpler job than deterring Russia was back then.
The real answer is simple: beat Russia ASAP so we can then concentrate on the other threats. But if Russia continues as it is, then the USA will get swept in eventually - and it will be a much tougher job then.
It's not as if isolationism has worked well for the USA in the past.
China is a strategic competitor on a different level to anything the US faced in that era. I don't think you're taking seriously the US's position (not just Trumpites).
How does enabling a man backed by the Chinese help the US in its conflict with China?
In the absence of US military support and the imposition of US tariffs on European goods, what possible strategic reasons are there for Europe not to seek a rapprochement with China?
You should direct the question towards the Biden administration that greenlighted Putin's invasion in the first place by signalling that they would do nothing but impose sanctions and send a limited amount of weapons and was fully expecting Kyiv to fall within days.
You're fighting yesterday's battles. We are where we are. A Democratic administration will not pull out of Europe, a Republican one seems very likely to, while also imposing tariffs on our imports. If this happens, Putin wins. That leaves foundational European (including UK) defence, security and economic priorities in tatters and makes a rapprochement with the Chinese close to a necessity.
Try making these points in the express... they just can't see it coming... but you are 100% right. The arrival of trump is a harbinger of doom for brexit.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
They don't but we do?
That's the joke.
Yes, when I saw the clip of Vance I realized it was a limp attempt at humour. But what struck me is this: does he actually believe Britain has been taken over by an Islamic government and thinks that's a bit of a laugh? Or does he not believe it and was taking the piss out of those who do?
If you parse what he said, the bit about Labour was clumsily added on so the joke was supposed to be that we might become an Islamic state before Iran manages to get a nuclear weapon.
"we sort of finally decided maybe it’s actually the UK, since Labour just took over.”
'Since' in the sense of 'because', i.e. that's why they had a sense of foreboding about the UK.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
They don't but we do?
That's the joke.
Yes, when I saw the clip of Vance I realized it was a limp attempt at humour. But what struck me is this: does he actually believe Britain has been taken over by an Islamic government and thinks that's a bit of a laugh? Or does he not believe it and was taking the piss out of those who do?
If you parse what he said, the bit about Labour was clumsily added on so the joke was supposed to be that we might become an Islamic state before Iran manages to get a nuclear weapon.
"we sort of finally decided maybe it’s actually the UK, since Labour just took over.”
'Since' in the sense of 'because', i.e. that's why they had a sense of foreboding about the UK.
Are they like the Roman seeing the Tiber foaming with much blood?
Ironically Powell, that early nutty adopter of the great replacement theory, was relatively comfortable with migrants from the Indian sub continent, it was the black man having the whip hand that gave him sleepless nights.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Ha, 97.7% is nothing. Arch democrat and human rights champion Paul Kagame just got 99% of the vote in the Rwandan Presidential election.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Ha, 97.7% is nothing. Arch democrat and human rights champion Paul Kagame just got 99% of the vote in the Rwandan Presidential election.
Nothing suspicious in that, nossir. Even 99% is lame.
Reporting on the results of Sunday's election for deputies to regional people's assemblies, the [North Korean] state media said 0.09 percent and 0.13 percent voted against the selected candidates for the provincial and city councils, respectively.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
They don't but we do?
That's the joke.
Yes, when I saw the clip of Vance I realized it was a limp attempt at humour. But what struck me is this: does he actually believe Britain has been taken over by an Islamic government and thinks that's a bit of a laugh? Or does he not believe it and was taking the piss out of those who do?
If you parse what he said, the bit about Labour was clumsily added on so the joke was supposed to be that we might become an Islamic state before Iran manages to get a nuclear weapon.
"we sort of finally decided maybe it’s actually the UK, since Labour just took over.”
'Since' in the sense of 'because', i.e. that's why they had a sense of foreboding about the UK.
So your guys think Labour is an Islamist party and Ukraine should be defunded. A real piece of work.
Who knows, he might get it overturned on appeal, the Supreme Court has, for impossible to predict reasons, apparently shown a prediliction towards making it harder to convict people of corruption.
They may really like this argument for example, since tying specific gifts to specific acts is near impossible.
Menendez had maintained his innocence throughout the trial, with his lawyers arguing that the gifts he accepted did not qualify as bribes, because prosecutors had failed to prove that he took any specific action as a result of receiving them.
Several posters here have repeatedly claimed that Trump won’t be bad for Ukraine. I hope they’ve seen the reality of the situation now.
I don't think such people can even spell reality.
Trump's attitude to Ukraine is plain to anyone who cares to listen and the outcome is patently obvious. He will immediately stop all aid - money, weapons and intel - to force a 'peace' that involves Ukraine giving up all occupied territories and promising never to join NATO or the EU.
Zelensky will tell Trump to go to hell.
At that point Europe will be faced the realisation that direct intervention is the only way to stop Russia taking Ukraine and, in time, surrounding countries. Too many are deluding themselves this won't happen, but Trump has already given us the seeds of the future and it's not hard to determine what kind of ugly and poisonous plants will grow from them.
It follows logically from your position that Ukraine would be better off with Trump because there certainly wouldn’t be any chance of direct intervention with Biden calling the shots and worrying about NATO unity.
Do you support Putin's territorial claims against Ukraine?
You don't have to support them to agree that they are inevitable and better to get it over with than have more death (and more territory taken) and possible escalation into out of control conflagration.
Given the price they have paid for getting Ulster Donbass, they won't be causing much further trouble any timesoon
A very recent poll has a plurality of Ukrainians wanting to negotiate a peace with Putin now
Of course the Ukes don’t want to yield to many of Putin’s demands but then a peace deal always means compromises - for both sides
Having to give up and sign an armistice without getting Odessa and Kharkov is going to hurt for Putin. The longer it goes on the greater the chance that Ukraine runs out of men while Putin still has lots of Caucasus and Siberian peasants to put on the front line.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
It does seem to be the case that engaging in reckless, offensive, or even criminal acts is now an incentive to push for higher office, for the protection it will bring, rather than a reason to quit whilst you are ahead. Really it is amazing the Senator was convicted, I guess because his corruption was done so incompetently.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Ha, 97.7% is nothing. Arch democrat and human rights champion Paul Kagame just got 99% of the vote in the Rwandan Presidential election.
Nothing suspicious in that, nossir. Even 99% is lame.
Reporting on the results of Sunday's election for deputies to regional people's assemblies, the [North Korean] state media said 0.09 percent and 0.13 percent voted against the selected candidates for the provincial and city councils, respectively.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
There is no money left, it seems. Again, voters understand what a disastrous government they have just expelled.
So what would you cut or what tax would you raise to pay for this additional spending? You're giving sixth form level answers and if Labour do the same they're going to get beaten in 2029.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The evidence is actually that Vance's references to Moslem counties are as much random terms of abuse to be deployed, as they are anything which might approach analysis.
See also, for example:
It's odd that one of Vance's signature lines about how to deal with the American bureaucracy is to subject it to "de-ba’athification," one of the US policies in Iraq that everyone seems to agree was a huge failure.. https://x.com/AASchapiro/status/1813241849374474670
Since Vance thought Trump might be the American Hitler, perhaps the earlier and more successful de-Nazification may be a better model?
As Vance is a convert to Catholicism and Trump seems to have found God big time since being shot, perhaps there is a conversion underway?
You know who else started off as a Catholic?
Madonna? Vance to don a conical bra and simulate masturbation on stage?
For heavens sake, we had enough of that subject with Leons self standing socks. Concial bras is just asking for trouble
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Ha, 97.7% is nothing. Arch democrat and human rights champion Paul Kagame just got 99% of the vote in the Rwandan Presidential election.
Nothing suspicious in that, nossir. Even 99% is lame.
Reporting on the results of Sunday's election for deputies to regional people's assemblies, the [North Korean] state media said 0.09 percent and 0.13 percent voted against the selected candidates for the provincial and city councils, respectively.
Magnificent! I wonder what the minimum number of voters required is to get to a 99.91% vote in favour figure.
Indeed.
But it is interesting how even most of the authoritarian regimes in the world still think it is important to at least pretend at democracy of some kind. It doesn't fool anyone I am sure, least of all in their own countries, but they still usually play make believe.
Are there any regimes that flat out refuse to have even a pretence at democracy? Saudi Arabia maybe?
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
There is no money left, it seems. Again, voters understand what a disastrous government they have just expelled.
So what would you cut or what tax would you raise to pay for this additional spending? You're giving sixth form level answers and if Labour do the same they're going to get beaten in 2029.
Personally, I would look at CGT and at wealth taxes more widely. I'd also look whether state pensions should be paid to the wealthiest pensioners. As interest rates come down, I also think extra borrowing will become much more feasible. On top of all of that, the current fiscal rules are not fit for purpose.
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
He didn't admire Putin too much last time, and actually stood up to him and intervened in Syria.
My view is that this is art of the deal stuff. I expect Putin to test him, that will piss him off, and he will double down.
I don't think he's just going to abandon America's position in the world as that sort of stuff gives him the horn. But the rhetoric will change.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Ha, 97.7% is nothing. Arch democrat and human rights champion Paul Kagame just got 99% of the vote in the Rwandan Presidential election.
The result of the last referendum in Gibraltar was 98.97% against shared sovereignty.
I wonder if the US will have a financial crisis if Trump erects a 10% tariff on imports. 60% on Chinese stuff and 100% on Chinese cars.
The reason, the sole reason, the US can borrow infinite money is because of the Dollar's role as global reserve currency. But demand is already down a lot. And if if the world begins to demand even fewer dollars, interest rates will have to go up and the yanks can't service that. All those cheap airconditioned mcmansions, massive flatbed trucks and double doored fridges will become unviable.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
There is no money left, it seems. Again, voters understand what a disastrous government they have just expelled.
So what would you cut or what tax would you raise to pay for this additional spending? You're giving sixth form level answers and if Labour do the same they're going to get beaten in 2029.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Sorry but if a commuter is catching a train that isn't London Overground they are not being subsidised by the TFL grant...
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Ha, 97.7% is nothing. Arch democrat and human rights champion Paul Kagame just got 99% of the vote in the Rwandan Presidential election.
The result of the last referendum in Gibraltar was 98.97% against shared sovereignty.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
I think the problem was the Conservative government we just had operated a bit like the one we had from 1970 to 1974 - talked about the problems but didn't address the root cause.
It's trouble was that it continued state largesse, and just with its favoured base and cutbacks in the rest.
The evidence is actually that Vance's references to Moslem counties are as much random terms of abuse to be deployed, as they are anything which might approach analysis.
See also, for example:
It's odd that one of Vance's signature lines about how to deal with the American bureaucracy is to subject it to "de-ba’athification," one of the US policies in Iraq that everyone seems to agree was a huge failure.. https://x.com/AASchapiro/status/1813241849374474670
Since Vance thought Trump might be the American Hitler, perhaps the earlier and more successful de-Nazification may be a better model?
As Vance is a convert to Catholicism and Trump seems to have found God big time since being shot, perhaps there is a conversion underway?
You know who else started off as a Catholic?
Madonna? Vance to don a conical bra and simulate masturbation on stage?
"THIS is the kind of filth and degradation that President Trump is fighting to eradicate!"
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
On the specifics of TfL, it's reckoned one journey in every five or six is made without paying. Fare evasion in my part of London is endemic among young men and some others. This costs TfL upwards of £160 million in lost fare revenue.
I suspect there's a law of diminishing returns at work and just as businesses "accept" a percentage of stock lost to shoplifters because the cost of the kind of security needed to prevent all shoplifting is prohibitive, so TfL know the cost of trying to wipe out fare evasion is unaffordable - you'd need 24 hour presence at some stations and there's just no resource.
However, any additional money to Transport for London has to come with the caveat fare evasion has to be tackled ruthlessly and without fear or favour. Recruiting additional revenue inspectors and increasing patrols at known problem stations would be a good start.
Changing the law so that they could give fare dodgers the
The Ukrainian war is in my view still a winnable war. The trouble is the west doesn't appear to want to win it.
Now is the time to accelerate aid to Ukraine, let them hit military and energy targets in Russia and put them in the best possible position come a Trump presidency with a plainly weakened Putin. Pandering to such a figure would make Trump look ridiculous.
I don't imagine Russia could do much more than threaten the Baltics at the moment which Poland might react to themselves. The key is to make sure the Russian economy remains weak so long as the maniac is in power.
Or just invite Ukraine into NATO as some sort of temporary member and ask the Russians to desist whilst that process is ongoing.
Russia would immediately seek a deal, and it'd probably just be Crimea at the longest of necks.
Or respond to what would be a declaration of war by nuking Akrotiri with a small tactical device.
At which point UK would invoke Article 5 and each other country would "take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
France would decide that calling in the Russian Ambasador for a bollocking would be needed while being secretly gleeful. They don't want to Risk Paris or anywhere else over Rosbif conlonial Issues.
Germany would do likewise but the without the glee and they haven't got any nukes anyway.
Turkey would invade the rest of Cyprus.
Ireland would put out a mealy mouthed statement sort of condemning Russia but waxing on about the iniquities of decayed colonial powers hanging onto chunks of european Islands.
Hungary would declare war on Ukraine and invade eastern Carpathia.
Biden would be too busy celebrating at the Noraid celehratory party to do anything, even when his advisors managed to re teach him what a red button is for.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
On the specifics of TfL, it's reckoned one journey in every five or six is made without paying. Fare evasion in my part of London is endemic among young men and some others. This costs TfL upwards of £160 million in lost fare revenue.
I suspect there's a law of diminishing returns at work and just as businesses "accept" a percentage of stock lost to shoplifters because the cost of the kind of security needed to prevent all shoplifting is prohibitive, so TfL know the cost of trying to wipe out fare evasion is unaffordable - you'd need 24 hour presence at some stations and there's just no resource.
However, any additional money to Transport for London has to come with the caveat fare evasion has to be tackled ruthlessly and without fear or favour. Recruiting additional revenue inspectors and increasing patrols at known problem stations would be a good start.
Changing the law so that they could give fare dodgers the
The Ukrainian war is in my view still a winnable war. The trouble is the west doesn't appear to want to win it.
Now is the time to accelerate aid to Ukraine, let them hit military and energy targets in Russia and put them in the best possible position come a Trump presidency with a plainly weakened Putin. Pandering to such a figure would make Trump look ridiculous.
I don't imagine Russia could do much more than threaten the Baltics at the moment which Poland might react to themselves. The key is to make sure the Russian economy remains weak so long as the maniac is in power.
Or just invite Ukraine into NATO as some sort of temporary member and ask the Russians to desist whilst that process is ongoing.
Russia would immediately seek a deal, and it'd probably just be Crimea at the longest of necks.
Or respond to what would be a declaration of war by nuking Akrotiri with a small tactical device.
At which point UK would invoke Article 5 and each other country would "take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
France would decide that calling in the Russian Ambasador for a bollocking would be needed while being secretly gleeful. They don't want to Risk Paris or anywhere else over Rosbif conlonial Issues.
Germany would do likewise but the without the glee and they haven't got any nukes anyway.
Turkey would invade the rest of Cyprus.
Ireland would put out a mealy mouthed statement sort of condemning Russia but waxing on about the iniquities of decayed colonial powers hanging onto chunks of european Islands.
Hungary would declare war on Ukraine and invade eastern Carpathia.
Biden would be too busy celebrating at the Noraid celehratory party to do anything, even when his advisors managed to re teach him what a red button is for.
Lord Falconer would resign.
Charlie doesn't resign in a crisis. And, just saying, but you're wrong.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
I think the problem was the Conservative government we just had operated a bit like the one we had from 1970 to 1974 - talked about the problems but didn't address the root cause.
It's trouble was that it continued state largesse, and just with its favoured base and cutbacks in the rest.
Strategic thinking there was none.
I know that spend to save is counter-factual. Especially for some politicians who are ideologues. Point is that none of these cuts are absolutes. You can't cut x from the police budget or the schools budget or any critical things we need without the y cost of the consequences of that.
And it isn't party political. Up here in Aberdeenshire the SNP government have slashed funding for the council. Which means they've had to squeeze education budgets and cut teaching places. That means more emergency cash having to be spent on supply staff - spending more not less.
When there is fat you can trim. All the fat has gone. We now cut muscle, which is a problem if we still intend to be able to move.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Sorry but if a commuter is catching a train that isn't London Overground they are not being subsidised by the TFL grant...
Metrolink's operational cost in GM was funded through farebox revenues until 2020, and is very close to returning to being so. Merseyrail does not cover its costs but is cross-subsidised through tolls on the Mersey road tunnels. So we do bear our own rapid transit costs in the big cities of the North West.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Do they have nuclear weapons that work?
They certainly don't have fucking great subs equipped with them that can go anywhere
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
There is no money left, it seems. Again, voters understand what a disastrous government they have just expelled.
So what would you cut or what tax would you raise to pay for this additional spending? You're giving sixth form level answers and if Labour do the same they're going to get beaten in 2029.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Sorry but if a commuter is catching a train that isn't London Overground they are not being subsidised by the TFL grant...
Metrolink's operational cost in GM was funded through farebox revenues until 2020, and is very close to returning to being so. Merseyrail does not cover its costs but is cross-subsidised through tolls on the Mersey road tunnels. So we do bear our own rapid transit costs in the big cities of the North West.
... and I'm fairly sure we do pay roughly the same cost per mile in the north for a far inferior service.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Do they have nuclear weapons that work?
They certainly don't have fucking great subs equipped with them that can go anywhere
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
A surprising thing about Japan is how many abandoned stations and closed lines there are. The country' increasing urbanisation made many lines unprofitable. There have been closures even in recent years:
"Between 2000 and 2021 alone, forty-five train lines spanning 1158 kilometers were decommissioned across Japan."
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
A surprising thing about Japan is how many abandoned stations and closed lines there are. The country' increasing urbanisation made many lines unprofitable. There have been closures even in recent years:
"Between 2000 and 2021 alone, forty-five train lines spanning 1158 kilometers were decommissioned across Japan."
Absolutely, they operate privately and without subsidies meaning they are more nimble at responding to changing demands. So they can both decommission redundant lines, and commission new required ones, in a fraction of the time it takes us to do either.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Tokyo says hello.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
A surprising thing about Japan is how many abandoned stations and closed lines there are. The country' increasing urbanisation made many lines unprofitable. There have been closures even in recent years:
"Between 2000 and 2021 alone, forty-five train lines spanning 1158 kilometers were decommissioned across Japan."
Absolutely, they operate privately and without subsidies meaning they are more nimble at responding to changing demands. So they can both decommission redundant lines, and commission new required ones, in a fraction of the time it takes us to do either.
We could learn a lot from their system.
As a matter of interest, what's the evidence for: "commission new required ones , in a fraction of the time it takes us" ?
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
The discussion was whether they count as an Islamist power or not.
In fairness the referendum only gave Zia and the Islamization program 97.7% approval in official results in 1984. And its not as if someone like Bin Laden was able to hide there quite safely for many years protected by the Pakistani Secret Service, is it? I mean, was this a serious discussion?
Ha, 97.7% is nothing. Arch democrat and human rights champion Paul Kagame just got 99% of the vote in the Rwandan Presidential election.
Nothing suspicious in that, nossir. Even 99% is lame.
Reporting on the results of Sunday's election for deputies to regional people's assemblies, the [North Korean] state media said 0.09 percent and 0.13 percent voted against the selected candidates for the provincial and city councils, respectively.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
It seems pretty clear that Trump/Vance are going to drive the UK and the EU much closer together.
What I do not get about the MAGA crowd, though, is their thinking on Ukraine. If Putin wins there, so do the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians. By pulling US support for Kyiv, the GOP will be empowering the regimes they claim to what to constrain. Furthermore, what strategic logic is there in Europe distancing itself from China if the US has essentially pulled out of Europe?
You square the circle, I reckon, by understanding that Trump and the party he now controls admire Putin and want him to succeed above all else.
He didn't admire Putin too much last time, and actually stood up to him and intervened in Syria.
My view is that this is art of the deal stuff. I expect Putin to test him, that will piss him off, and he will double down.
I don't think he's just going to abandon America's position in the world as that sort of stuff gives him the horn. But the rhetoric will change.
IF this Trump's foreign policy is "Art of the Deal" stuff, then God help us all.
Does JD Vance really think that Pakistan does not have nuclear weapons? I think most people think they have had them for the best part of 40 years. Or is he just pig ignorant?
Do they have nuclear weapons that work?
If they do, it's more than we have.
Polaris still works, we just don't know exactly what they'll hit.
Another bowl of shit for Labour - Sadiq has asked for a £0.5bn annual subsidy for TFL, the Tories refused this and it played, IMO, a fairly big role in them becoming very unpopular in London but the reasons for refusing were sound so now Labour will be faced with giving in and getting slammed by their voters in the north for subsidising the richest part of the country or continuing to refuse and take on the unpopularity in London it comes with.
Being in government is a series of shit bowls and now Labour are going to eat them everyday.
Yes, the previous government left the country in a disastrously bad state. The vast majority of voters know this.
Where does the money come from SO? Subsidising TFL should be very low down the priority list and I say that as a Londoner.
No city of comparable size has an unsubsidised transport system.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
Sorry but if a commuter is catching a train that isn't London Overground they are not being subsidised by the TFL grant...
They are not being subsidised by a TfL grant if they do get London Overground either.
Meanwhile Northern Rail got a subsidy of just short of £600 million in 2022-23.
Thats why an anual season ticket from London to St Albans (25 miles) costs £4388, whereas one from Manchester to Liverpool (35 miles) costs £2716.
Far from London & South East rail travellers getting an unfair slice of the pie, they pay a tax on their train fares to subsidise the Northern train services.
Money? We can't afford *not* to spend it. We've done the cut your way to growth plan and it was a disaster. The more we cut the more we had to spend mopping up the mess.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
No, it is better to increase investment but you simply can't do it when every penny + £100bn or so is being spent on current consumption. We need serious cuts in public spending to finance serious public investment. But we cannot have the latter without the former, ask Liz Truss.
Comments
I suspect there's a law of diminishing returns at work and just as businesses "accept" a percentage of stock lost to shoplifters because the cost of the kind of security needed to prevent all shoplifting is prohibitive, so TfL know the cost of trying to wipe out fare evasion is unaffordable - you'd need 24 hour presence at some stations and there's just no resource.
However, any additional money to Transport for London has to come with the caveat fare evasion has to be tackled ruthlessly and without fear or favour. Recruiting additional revenue inspectors and increasing patrols at known problem stations would be a good start.
The real answer is simple: beat Russia ASAP so we can then concentrate on the other threats. But if Russia continues as it is, then the USA will get swept in eventually - and it will be a much tougher job then.
It's not as if isolationism has worked well for the USA in the past.
Will it be him and Badenoch to the member's vote after the Party Conference?
Russia would immediately seek a deal, and it'd probably just be Crimea at the longest of necks.
Senator Bob Menendez found guilty of taking bribes.
You should be able to get one discounted to clear.
https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2024/07/15/apple-s-vision-pro-600m-failure-shows-importance-market-orientation
Of course we have David Lammy.
"Just two years ago, he struggled to raise money during his Senate bid because he attacked the GOP establishment. He underperformed Mr. Trump’s 2020 Ohio margin of victory, and his candidacy required the super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to spend tens of millions more dollars than planned to hold the seat."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/15/vance-vp-trump-republican-convention/
(In the 2016 election, Trump ran behind Republican candidates for the Senate and governor in several key states. I argued at the time that he might have lost, had it not been for a "reverse coattail" effect.)
In the absence of US military support and the imposition of US tariffs on European goods, what possible strategic reasons are there for Europe not to seek a rapprochement with China?
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/j-d-vance-would-be-a-weak-running-mate/amp/
There is a counter view but it isn’t a very persuasive one:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-vance-would-bring-to-the-ticket/
Vance could well be a damaging drag for Trump. At least Harris is a known if rather dull quantity.
The dollar as a weapon.
Interesting from Lawrence McDonald
https://x.com/convertbond/status/1813144817683030412?s=61
Love these clever people takes.
UK probably not so much.
Ironically Powell, that early nutty adopter of the great replacement theory, was relatively comfortable with migrants from the Indian sub continent, it was the black man having the whip hand that gave him sleepless nights.
Reporting on the results of Sunday's election for deputies to regional people's assemblies, the [North Korean] state media said 0.09 percent and 0.13 percent voted against the selected candidates for the provincial and city councils, respectively.
"Among the voters who took part in the ballot-casting, 99.91 percent voted for the candidates for deputies to provincial people's assemblies.... (and) 99.87 percent voted for candidates for deputies to city and county people's assemblies," state news agency KCNA said.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-cites-rare-dissent-elections-even-99-back-candidates-2023-11-28/
Who knows, he might get it overturned on appeal, the Supreme Court has, for impossible to predict reasons, apparently shown a prediliction towards making it harder to convict people of corruption.
They may really like this argument for example, since tying specific gifts to specific acts is near impossible.
Menendez had maintained his innocence throughout the trial, with his lawyers arguing that the gifts he accepted did not qualify as bribes, because prosecutors had failed to prove that he took any specific action as a result of receiving them.
When the North have to pay the same fares per mile as London Commuters, not a fraction of the fare, I might have some sympathy with their whining.
But it is interesting how even most of the authoritarian regimes in the world still think it is important to at least pretend at democracy of some kind. It doesn't fool anyone I am sure, least of all in their own countries, but they still usually play make believe.
Are there any regimes that flat out refuse to have even a pretence at democracy? Saudi Arabia maybe?
That's not usually how it goes with veeps.
My view is that this is art of the deal stuff. I expect Putin to test him, that will piss him off, and he will double down.
I don't think he's just going to abandon America's position in the world as that sort of stuff gives him the horn. But the rhetoric will change.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
Hong Kong, for example, makes a profit.
Mind you, this list also claims London does. So who knows.
The reason, the sole reason, the US can borrow infinite money is because of the Dollar's role as global reserve currency. But demand is already down a lot. And if if the world begins to demand even fewer dollars, interest rates will have to go up and the yanks can't service that. All those cheap airconditioned mcmansions, massive flatbed trucks and double doored fridges will become unviable.
https://asiatimes.com/2024/07/yellens-de-dollarization-fears-will-only-get-worse/
He's a sixth form guy.
It is better to borrow, and invest, and see a return on that investment. Cutting services costs more. Instead of proactively spending ££ to stop things happening, we end up spending £££ dealing with the consequences of those cuts.
I am not talking about "the bloated welfare state" or whatever the right want to call it. I am talking about borrowing money and investing it in education. In infrastructure. In maintenance. In defence. Create a large number of jobs which give people money to spend which creates more jobs - capitalism. And by spending on "maintenance" - pot holes, crumbling schools etc - we create an environment people want to be in. Which improves productivity and thus growth. Instead of decaying crumbling communities where everything is shut including the police station despite the runaway crime epidemic caused by everything being shut, we get a vibrant community on the up.
What is the point in more cuts. We know what they lead to - everything broken and record debts.
It's trouble was that it continued state largesse, and just with its favoured base and cutbacks in the rest.
Strategic thinking there was none.
Andy Dunks was giving evidence at the Post Office Inquiry today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NdllFmKCME
At which point UK would invoke Article 5 and each other country would "take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
France would decide that calling in the Russian Ambasador for a bollocking would be needed while being secretly gleeful. They don't want to Risk Paris or anywhere else over Rosbif conlonial Issues.
Germany would do likewise but the without the glee and they haven't got any nukes anyway.
Turkey would invade the rest of Cyprus.
Ireland would put out a mealy mouthed statement sort of condemning Russia but waxing on about the iniquities of decayed colonial powers hanging onto chunks of european Islands.
Hungary would declare war on Ukraine and invade eastern Carpathia.
Biden would be too busy celebrating at the Noraid celehratory party to do anything, even when his advisors managed to re teach him what a red button is for.
Lord Falconer would resign.
And it isn't party political. Up here in Aberdeenshire the SNP government have slashed funding for the council. Which means they've had to squeeze education budgets and cut teaching places. That means more emergency cash having to be spent on supply staff - spending more not less.
When there is fat you can trim. All the fat has gone. We now cut muscle, which is a problem if we still intend to be able to move.
Merseyrail does not cover its costs but is cross-subsidised through tolls on the Mersey road tunnels.
So we do bear our own rapid transit costs in the big cities of the North West.
Japan has a higher proportion of people travelling on rails than the UK, and in the main island where Tokyo etc are it is subsidy free.
Subsidies only exist for the remote islands which are more comparable to subsidising the Scottish Highlands and nowhere else.
"Between 2000 and 2021 alone, forty-five train lines spanning 1158 kilometers were decommissioned across Japan."
https://globalvoices.org/2022/02/24/japans-local-rail-lines-become-the-latest-pandemic-victim/
We could learn a lot from their system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQQwvXfAb6A
She really likes the burg(h)!
Meanwhile Northern Rail got a subsidy of just short of £600 million in 2022-23.
Thats why an anual season ticket from London to St Albans (25 miles) costs £4388, whereas one from Manchester to Liverpool (35 miles) costs £2716.
Far from London & South East rail travellers getting an unfair slice of the pie, they pay a tax on their train fares to subsidise the Northern train services.