The **** ******* ****** should ***** and ***** his ***** to *****.
What made the wanker interested in U.K. politics all of a sudden ?
Whether we like it or not, Western and particularly Anglosphere politics increasingly share a common discourse.
Which, whilst true, is fundamentally stupid. The reason why the nation-state exists is to allow each polity to tailor its policies to the interests of that nation's people. As I said a few pages back, Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg shouldn't be in charge, the British should be.
You are assuming the nation state is as relevant anymore, increasingly corporations are more powerful than nations.
Definitely thinking of retiring slightly chippy, liberal Guardianista, milquetoast employment lawyer Doug Seal and coming back as relaxed, suave, ex-special forces, professional gambler, libertarian, playboy, Phil Otter.
Incredible. 21% Reform voters support the riots. That’s right, supporting burning down hotels, racist assaults and throwing concrete slabs and bricks at the police. Explains why @Nigel_Farage @TiceRichard and @LeeAndersonMP_ has been so soft on the rioters
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
I've heard on here he's a genius though!
I have just read the X account he has linked to. It is appalling. Full of racism and in particular unfiltered antisemitism. No subtlety. Blatant. So what the hell is Musk doing?
I don’t think racism is a red line for Musk.
Clearly not, although the anti semitism is quite shocking. I'm shocked it is allowed. Have any off you drilled down to the linked account and looked at the postings and videos. Worth a trip if you want to be disgusted.
Definitely thinking of retiring slightly chippy, liberal Guardianista, milquetoast employment lawyer Doug Seal and coming back as relaxed, suave, ex-special forces, professional gambler, libertarian, playboy, Phil Otter.
Are there any other gold medal chances for Team GB in the athletics?
The team leaning on your shovel, drinking a cup of tea while watching and apprentice do all the work event
I definitely think I saw our gold medal hopes for that event earlier today....resurfacing a car park, one bloke vaping who appeared to be boss man, 3 blokes on their phones, some youngish kid ferrying wheel barrows loads of steaming tarmac.
One thing is constant - it is always the most junior and least able who is actually doing some work.
I presume after he finished with the tarmac he will have been sent for copy of the Sun, 4 teas with 10 sugars, a long weight and some tarten paint.
Down to the marina for a bucket of prop wash, Shirley?
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
Yep, we discussed last night that Keely’s 800m was at 14.6s/100m, Hocker’s 1,500m tonight was 13.8s/100m. Hell, Kipchoge’s marathon pace is 17s/100m, but for two hours straight!
Definitely thinking of retiring slightly chippy, liberal Guardianista, milquetoast employment lawyer Doug Seal and coming back as relaxed, suave, ex-special forces, professional gambler, libertarian, playboy, Phil Otter.
Please tell me that Phil Otter has a pocket. 😎
No, that’s ’is cousin from Down Under, Bruce Platypus
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
I find it surprising how slowly speed/pace drops off with distance.
Say a 'good' baseline time for the 100m is 10s
At that speed, the 1500m would take 150 seconds, or 2m30s. The Olympic record just set was 3.27, or a minute slower. 70% of the speed for 15 times the distance.
As for marathon: if we take the record to be a round 2 hours, that is 7,200 seconds for 42,200m. At 100m pace it would would be about 70 minutes. So we have lost under half the pace for 422 times the distance.
(Hope I've got the maths right... would have been more sensible to convert to m/s...)
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Elite Athletics is one of those things where they really are super human. You could train and train and train, every day, you will never get anywhere close. There are other sports where enough application you can kinda of get in very low end ballpark e.g. with reasonable coordination and a lot of practice a large number of people can become a scratch golfer, the pros are still several shots a round better, but it isn't you wheezing at the side of the track after 20s (despite all your training) vs they blast out a 1500m in 3mins 30s.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
Incredible. 21% Reform voters support the riots. That’s right, supporting burning down hotels, racist assaults and throwing concrete slabs and bricks at the police. Explains why @Nigel_Farage @TiceRichard and @LeeAndersonMP_ has been so soft on the rioters
Anyone? They can't be telling us how many Reform supporters like the riots and then not tell us how many Reform supporters there are, that would be a farce.
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
I find it surprising how slowly speed/pace drops off with distance.
Say a 'good' baseline time for the 100m is 10s
At that speed, the 1500m would take 150 seconds, or 2m30s. The Olympic record just set was 3.27, or a minute slower. 70% of the speed for 15 times the distance.
As for marathon: if we take the record to be a round 2 hours, that is 7,200 seconds for 42,200m. At 100m pace it would would be about 70 minutes. So we have lost under half the pace for 422 times the distance.
(Hope I've got the maths right... would have been more sensible to convert to m/s...)
I remember going to the world cross country championships and seeing the men shoot off the line I thought well they must be just sprinting to get position....30 mins later they were still going at that pace and all lining up the kick finish.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
There's usually a socioeconomic context to public disorder and this is no exception. But I'm talking about the people leading and avidly participating in racially targeted violence. Attacks on Mosques, Asylum Seekers etc. These people have no legitimate cause or context for their actions. It awards them an unmerited gravitas to suggest otherwise.
Yes. I find it utterly astonishing that folk can equate seeking to burn down hotels, knowing that there are residents and staff in them, with any other form of protest that I've witnessed over the last 50 years.
It's attempted mass murder, and for all the wrongdoing witnessed on other 'protests' I've never seen anything as wicked.
I was at the BLM riots in Trafalgar Sq in 2020 and I saw multiple beatings of white people which, if the coppers hadn’t leapt in and saved the victim, would have likely turned into murder
That’s what I saw. I was there
Two days later, Starmer took the knee
Yet you still claim to have voted for Starmer last month, and not, say, for RefUK...
Do you know I don't altogether believe you.
Doesn't quite scan, does it.
I don't have any problem believing it. @Leon loves winners, whether they are despots, crooks like Trump or psychopaths like Putin. In contrast he despise losers and Sunak was a loser. He finds losing a moral flaw, evidence of weakness. Starmer was obviously going to be the winner. Who cares what he actually stands for?
lol. There is a absolutely something in that (tho your slurs about Trump and Putin are unfair, I revile both)
But, yes, one of the less important reasons I voted for Starmer was the psychological feeling that, for the one and surely only time in my life, I would be voting for the winner, THE winner. The actual prime minister. Kir Royale Starmer
Turns out he’s rubbish but hey
This is comedy gold.
@TSE@rcs1000 I think that @Babbage9 might, just might, be the artist formerly known as...take your pick. Can we have a ruling?
It could just be someone who's paying homage?
Like Oasis with the Beatles as it were?
Ah hello!
Should we settle our £20 bet then?
Yes - congrats!
Let me know how you'd like to go about settling it.
Well we said charity or site funds. I've just done some site funds so let's say charity.
Shelter?
Yes that would be fine - do you want to give me an email address or something (suitably disguised if on here) so I can send a receipt conf if available?
The **** ******* ****** should ***** and ***** his ***** to *****.
What made the wanker interested in U.K. politics all of a sudden ?
Whether we like it or not, Western and particularly Anglosphere politics increasingly share a common discourse.
Which, whilst true, is fundamentally stupid. The reason why the nation-state exists is to allow each polity to tailor its policies to the interests of that nation's people. As I said a few pages back, Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg shouldn't be in charge, the British should be.
You are assuming the nation state is as relevant anymore, increasingly corporations are more powerful than nations.
I know. But I regret it and I contend it leads to bad governance.
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
Forget middle distance, most people wouldnt stand a chance to reach a marathon runners average speed which is faster than most treadmills top speed.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
I've heard on here he's a genius though!
I have just read the X account he has linked to. It is appalling. Full of racism and in particular unfiltered antisemitism. No subtlety. Blatant. So what the hell is Musk doing?
I don’t think racism is a red line for Musk.
Clearly not, although the anti semitism is quite shocking. I'm shocked it is allowed. Have any off you drilled down to the linked account and looked at the postings and videos. Worth a trip if you want to be disgusted.
I did. I now have to clear down my internet cache. I'm not joking, it went full-on Nazi very quickly.
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Elite Athletics is one of those things where they really are super human. You could train and train and train, every day, you will never get anywhere close. There are other sports where enough application you can kinda of get in very low end ballpark e.g. with reasonable coordination and a lot of practice a large number of people can become a scratch golfer, the pros are still several shots a round better, but it isn't you wheezing at the side of the track after 20s (despite all your training) vs they blast out a 1500m in 3mins 30s.
I confess to being a tad disappointed by the “fastest men in the world” last night, at the Games, watching the 200m finals
I watched them and thought, here’s some guys who can run fast. There was no Wow factor. I contrast that with the time I first encountered live pro international rugby and thought Fuck me, these guys are huge and they are smashing each other to pieces
Track and field is a bit boring in reality, this is why it’s not popular outwith the Games
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
I've heard on here he's a genius though!
I have just read the X account he has linked to. It is appalling. Full of racism and in particular unfiltered antisemitism. No subtlety. Blatant. So what the hell is Musk doing?
I don’t think racism is a red line for Musk.
Clearly not, although the anti semitism is quite shocking. I'm shocked it is allowed. Have any off you drilled down to the linked account and looked at the postings and videos. Worth a trip if you want to be disgusted.
I stopped being shocked by him a while back. Genius engineer; otherwise a lowlife.
I didn't realise quite how ugly the scenes were at that hotel in Rotherham on Sunday. Via BBC;
--
A total of 51 officers were injured in the violence outside a Holiday Inn Express hotel in Rotherham on Sunday, South Yorkshire Police say. Officers received injuries including broken bones, concussion, bruising, and head wounds and police horses and dogs were also hurt, the force says. It adds that officers unable to return to frontline duties are now part of the team gathering evidence to secure arrests and charges. Assistant Chief Constable David Hartley says he is proud of the officers' "bravery and resilience" and they are "truly grateful for the kind messages of thanks and support". He adds: "If you were involved in the outright acts of violence and thuggery on Sunday, let me be clear - we are coming for you."
Some grim reports that the Telegram posters, possibly Russian neo-Nazis according to C4 News's latest accounts of the security services' work, are encouraging gatherings near some Jewish areas, tomorrow.
Meanwhile Musk continues to link and re-tweet to some horribly antisemitic sources.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
There's usually a socioeconomic context to public disorder and this is no exception. But I'm talking about the people leading and avidly participating in racially targeted violence. Attacks on Mosques, Asylum Seekers etc. These people have no legitimate cause or context for their actions. It awards them an unmerited gravitas to suggest otherwise.
Yes. I find it utterly astonishing that folk can equate seeking to burn down hotels, knowing that there are residents and staff in them, with any other form of protest that I've witnessed over the last 50 years.
It's attempted mass murder, and for all the wrongdoing witnessed on other 'protests' I've never seen anything as wicked.
I was at the BLM riots in Trafalgar Sq in 2020 and I saw multiple beatings of white people which, if the coppers hadn’t leapt in and saved the victim, would have likely turned into murder
That’s what I saw. I was there
Two days later, Starmer took the knee
Yet you still claim to have voted for Starmer last month, and not, say, for RefUK...
Do you know I don't altogether believe you.
Doesn't quite scan, does it.
So, what, now you don’t believe me? That I voted for this twat Starmer? What would I gain from lying to you about my vote?! What do I care what you think of my vote? You seriously over estimate your salience in my mind
Well your vote is at odds with your politics. So if it's true you voted Labour you either betrayed your politics or you disrespected the democratic process.
Oh good grief, could you get more pompous?
There was a serious reason for my vote, too. I want - or wanted - Starmer to have a big majority. The worst possible outcome for Britain was a feeble NOM Labour govt
I had hopes (maybe I still do) that Labour - eg - might reform the NHS. For that you need the confidence of many MPs
Ok. So there's a 'better you' which we don't have the pleasure of on here. One which isn't obsessed with race and nationhood and borders etc.
That's plausible and I'm going to plause it because it comforts me.
Do you really think the guy on here is my true persona?
Ask someone on PB that’s met me. there are a few. I come on here for debate and argument and to have my views vigorously challenged and to do the same to others. Some times I come on here just for company
Of course I am spikier on here than in real life. Do you think I rant at my friends and family about the EU or tax rates or illegal migration? But, isn’t this true of all of us? - we come on here to offload and to spar, to chat with an intensity that would be ugly or nerdy in actual human company
This is your lack of imagination showing. But it’s fine. I have just had 9 oysters in a brasserie and the world is sweet
Ah so hide your hard right views irl?
Good call. 🙂
(if only they all did that)
I work in the arts and live (occasionally) in north London. Half my friends are filthy commies
Same. I vent here sometimes because I'm a right leaning libertarian and some of my views - even on boring stuff like taxation - would make me persona non grata with my friends.
I sorta play up to that side of my personality here but as you know most of my friends are lefty, liberal, arty, queer types. So I'm for sure not the same person on here that I am in real life.
This is a place to vent and talk politics and argue ideas with other geeks when some of us don't have that outlet IRL.
I hang out on a few online forums and PB is the place I come to if I want an intellectual debate. Maybe it doesn't seem that way sometimes, but have you seen the midwits on Twitter and Reddit?
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
The **** ******* ****** should ***** and ***** his ***** to *****.
What made the wanker interested in U.K. politics all of a sudden ?
Whether we like it or not, Western and particularly Anglosphere politics increasingly share a common discourse.
Which, whilst true, is fundamentally stupid. The reason why the nation-state exists is to allow each polity to tailor its policies to the interests of that nation's people. As I said a few pages back, Musk/Bezos/Zuckerberg shouldn't be in charge, the British should be.
You are assuming the nation state is as relevant anymore, increasingly corporations are more powerful than nations.
I know. But I regret it and I contend it leads to bad governance.
I didn't say I didn't regret it but one of williams gibsons predictions that seems to be coming true
USA just starting to ease away into a comfortable lead in the Olympic gold medals now. No longer will their press need to calculate the table differently.
Britain becalmed and unable to make up ground on the Australians.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
There's usually a socioeconomic context to public disorder and this is no exception. But I'm talking about the people leading and avidly participating in racially targeted violence. Attacks on Mosques, Asylum Seekers etc. These people have no legitimate cause or context for their actions. It awards them an unmerited gravitas to suggest otherwise.
Yes. I find it utterly astonishing that folk can equate seeking to burn down hotels, knowing that there are residents and staff in them, with any other form of protest that I've witnessed over the last 50 years.
It's attempted mass murder, and for all the wrongdoing witnessed on other 'protests' I've never seen anything as wicked.
I was at the BLM riots in Trafalgar Sq in 2020 and I saw multiple beatings of white people which, if the coppers hadn’t leapt in and saved the victim, would have likely turned into murder
That’s what I saw. I was there
Two days later, Starmer took the knee
Yet you still claim to have voted for Starmer last month, and not, say, for RefUK...
Do you know I don't altogether believe you.
Doesn't quite scan, does it.
So, what, now you don’t believe me? That I voted for this twat Starmer? What would I gain from lying to you about my vote?! What do I care what you think of my vote? You seriously over estimate your salience in my mind
Well your vote is at odds with your politics. So if it's true you voted Labour you either betrayed your politics or you disrespected the democratic process.
Oh good grief, could you get more pompous?
There was a serious reason for my vote, too. I want - or wanted - Starmer to have a big majority. The worst possible outcome for Britain was a feeble NOM Labour govt
I had hopes (maybe I still do) that Labour - eg - might reform the NHS. For that you need the confidence of many MPs
Ok. So there's a 'better you' which we don't have the pleasure of on here. One which isn't obsessed with race and nationhood and borders etc.
That's plausible and I'm going to plause it because it comforts me.
Do you really think the guy on here is my true persona?
Ask someone on PB that’s met me. there are a few. I come on here for debate and argument and to have my views vigorously challenged and to do the same to others. Some times I come on here just for company
Of course I am spikier on here than in real life. Do you think I rant at my friends and family about the EU or tax rates or illegal migration? But, isn’t this true of all of us? - we come on here to offload and to spar, to chat with an intensity that would be ugly or nerdy in actual human company
This is your lack of imagination showing. But it’s fine. I have just had 9 oysters in a brasserie and the world is sweet
Ah so hide your hard right views irl?
Good call. 🙂
(if only they all did that)
I work in the arts and live (occasionally) in north London. Half my friends are filthy commies
Same. I vent here sometimes because I'm a right leaning libertarian and some of my views - even on boring stuff like taxation - would make me persona non grata with my friends.
I sorta play up to that side of my personality here but as you know most of my friends are lefty, liberal, arty, queer types. So I'm for sure not the same person on here that I am in real life.
This is a place to vent and talk politics and argue ideas with other geeks when some of us don't have that outlet IRL.
I hang out on a few online forums and PB is the place I come to if I want an intellectual debate. Maybe it doesn't seem that way sometimes, but have you seen the midwits on Twitter and Reddit?
Yes. Exactly the same
Reddit is good for very niche debate but it’s slow
USA just starting to ease away into a comfortable lead in the Olympic gold medals now. No longer will their press need to calculate the table differently.
Britain becalmed and unable to make up ground on the Australians.
There's been a lot of GB medals opportunities in the past few days which haven't materialised or if they have weren't gold when with a bit of luck they would have been.
USA just starting to ease away into a comfortable lead in the Olympic gold medals now. No longer will their press need to calculate the table differently.
Britain becalmed and unable to make up ground on the Australians.
There's been a lot of GB medals opportunities in the past few days which haven't materialised or if they have weren't gold when with a bit of luck they would have been.
Think this is the law of averages kicking in after a lot of luck the other way in Tokyo and Rio
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
I've heard on here he's a genius though!
I have just read the X account he has linked to. It is appalling. Full of racism and in particular unfiltered antisemitism. No subtlety. Blatant. So what the hell is Musk doing?
I don’t think racism is a red line for Musk.
Clearly not, although the anti semitism is quite shocking. I'm shocked it is allowed. Have any off you drilled down to the linked account and looked at the postings and videos. Worth a trip if you want to be disgusted.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Amazing that the long jumpers are again nowhere close to the world record, which has now stood for the same 33 years as the one that preceeded it.
Mike Powell 8.95 1991, Bob Beamon 8.90 1968.
Today’s athletes, despite the advances in track and shoe technology, aren’t close to what Beamon did 66 years ago.
Beamon had the thin air of Mexico City. Powell, god knows what he had.
Quality of baking soda was better back in the day....
Also noticed there at the end, that FloJo still has the W200m record as well. 1988 was definitely a good year for the baking soda, at least the 200m record didn’t rely on a dodgy wind reading like the 100m record did.
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Elite Athletics is one of those things where they really are super human. You could train and train and train, every day, you will never get anywhere close. There are other sports where enough application you can kinda of get in very low end ballpark e.g. with reasonable coordination and a lot of practice a large number of people can become a scratch golfer, the pros are still several shots a round better, but it isn't you wheezing at the side of the track after 20s (despite all your training) vs they blast out a 1500m in 3mins 30s.
I confess to being a tad disappointed by the “fastest men in the world” last night, at the Games, watching the 200m finals
I watched them and thought, here’s some guys who can run fast. There was no Wow factor. I contrast that with the time I first encountered live pro international rugby and thought Fuck me, these guys are huge and they are smashing each other to pieces
Track and field is a bit boring in reality, this is why it’s not popular outwith the Games
Modern rugby players are absolute units (plenty of suspicion there might be some widespread usage of the baking sodas at least before they hit the pro game).
I was at a game this season and I hadn't seen some of the players in the flesh before e.g. Joe Cokanasiga. He was warming up with a few other players and I thought well he isn't that big really, then the water bloke came up to him and I was like no, he is absolutely massive unit, its that all the rest of them are as well.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
He was also a far better president than given credit for.
I'm not sure that's true. He did provide a moral anchor when the country needed it, and some of his eco policies were before their time. But I watched his "crisis of confidence" speech and I think he was in the wrong job. Don't get me wrong, I agreed with it, but it was more a preacher scolding his flock than a President speaking to his people. Steve Richards says that a PM should be a teacher, and Carter I think got the tone wrong
Amazing that the long jumpers are again nowhere close to the world record, which has now stood for the same 33 years as the one that preceeded it.
Mike Powell 8.95 1991, Bob Beamon 8.90 1968.
Today’s athletes, despite the advances in track and shoe technology, aren’t close to what Beamon did 66 years ago.
Beamon had the thin air of Mexico City. Powell, god knows what he had.
Quality of baking soda was better back in the day....
Also noticed there at the end, that FloJo still has the W200m record as well. 1988 was definitely a good year for the baking soda, at least the 200m record didn’t rely on a dodgy wind reading like the 100m record did.
FloJo would have failed a modern drugs test just breathing into the test tube, no need for a piss test.
Interesting finding from that article in re the Musk spat -
“… social media is similarly seen as highly responsible for the riots, with 86% of the public viewing them as a key driving force in the unfolding unrest. More conventional news media is also blamed by seven in ten Britons (69%) as having driven the riots to some degree, with only one in five (19%) believing they aren’t responsible.”
I think the public take a more critical view of media, both modern and legacy, than we give credit for.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
I've heard on here he's a genius though!
I have just read the X account he has linked to. It is appalling. Full of racism and in particular unfiltered antisemitism. No subtlety. Blatant. So what the hell is Musk doing?
I don’t think racism is a red line for Musk.
Clearly not, although the anti semitism is quite shocking. I'm shocked it is allowed. Have any off you drilled down to the linked account and looked at the postings and videos. Worth a trip if you want to be disgusted.
I stopped being shocked by him a while back. Genius engineer; otherwise a lowlife.
It can't be helping his brand much. I'd have been in the market for a Tesla in a year or two. No way now, and I doubt I'm the only one put off by his antics.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
USA just starting to ease away into a comfortable lead in the Olympic gold medals now. No longer will their press need to calculate the table differently.
Britain becalmed and unable to make up ground on the Australians.
Nah China will win a lot of medals in the weightlifting, especially without the Russians there. It's going to be quite tight for who gets most golds overall.
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Elite Athletics is one of those things where they really are super human. You could train and train and train, every day, you will never get anywhere close. There are other sports where enough application you can kinda of get in very low end ballpark e.g. with reasonable coordination and a lot of practice a large number of people can become a scratch golfer, the pros are still several shots a round better, but it isn't you wheezing at the side of the track after 20s (despite all your training) vs they blast out a 1500m in 3mins 30s.
I confess to being a tad disappointed by the “fastest men in the world” last night, at the Games, watching the 200m finals
I watched them and thought, here’s some guys who can run fast. There was no Wow factor. I contrast that with the time I first encountered live pro international rugby and thought Fuck me, these guys are huge and they are smashing each other to pieces
Track and field is a bit boring in reality, this is why it’s not popular outwith the Games
Modern rugby players are absolute units (plenty of suspicion there might be some widespread usage of the baking sodas at least before they hit the pro game).
I was at a game this season and I hadn't seen some of the players in the flesh before e.g. Joe Cokanasiga. He was warming up with a few other players and I thought well he isn't that big really, then the water bloke came up to him and I was like no, he is absolutely massive unit, its that all the rest of them are as well.
Got a seat on the front row by the tunnel at the RL World Cup Oz V England 2017. By heck the Burgess brothers are big lads. And they are generally smaller than many of the Union guys.
Edit. Which makes Rob Burrow all the braver and more tragic.
"Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%."
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
There's usually a socioeconomic context to public disorder and this is no exception. But I'm talking about the people leading and avidly participating in racially targeted violence. Attacks on Mosques, Asylum Seekers etc. These people have no legitimate cause or context for their actions. It awards them an unmerited gravitas to suggest otherwise.
Yes. I find it utterly astonishing that folk can equate seeking to burn down hotels, knowing that there are residents and staff in them, with any other form of protest that I've witnessed over the last 50 years.
It's attempted mass murder, and for all the wrongdoing witnessed on other 'protests' I've never seen anything as wicked.
I was at the BLM riots in Trafalgar Sq in 2020 and I saw multiple beatings of white people which, if the coppers hadn’t leapt in and saved the victim, would have likely turned into murder
That’s what I saw. I was there
Two days later, Starmer took the knee
Yet you still claim to have voted for Starmer last month, and not, say, for RefUK...
Do you know I don't altogether believe you.
Doesn't quite scan, does it.
So, what, now you don’t believe me? That I voted for this twat Starmer? What would I gain from lying to you about my vote?! What do I care what you think of my vote? You seriously over estimate your salience in my mind
Well your vote is at odds with your politics. So if it's true you voted Labour you either betrayed your politics or you disrespected the democratic process.
Oh good grief, could you get more pompous?
There was a serious reason for my vote, too. I want - or wanted - Starmer to have a big majority. The worst possible outcome for Britain was a feeble NOM Labour govt
I had hopes (maybe I still do) that Labour - eg - might reform the NHS. For that you need the confidence of many MPs
Ok. So there's a 'better you' which we don't have the pleasure of on here. One which isn't obsessed with race and nationhood and borders etc.
That's plausible and I'm going to plause it because it comforts me.
Do you really think the guy on here is my true persona?
Ask someone on PB that’s met me. there are a few. I come on here for debate and argument and to have my views vigorously challenged and to do the same to others. Some times I come on here just for company
Of course I am spikier on here than in real life. Do you think I rant at my friends and family about the EU or tax rates or illegal migration? But, isn’t this true of all of us? - we come on here to offload and to spar, to chat with an intensity that would be ugly or nerdy in actual human company
This is your lack of imagination showing. But it’s fine. I have just had 9 oysters in a brasserie and the world is sweet
Ah so hide your hard right views irl?
Good call. 🙂
(if only they all did that)
I work in the arts and live (occasionally) in north London. Half my friends are filthy commies
Same. I vent here sometimes because I'm a right leaning libertarian and some of my views - even on boring stuff like taxation - would make me persona non grata with my friends.
I sorta play up to that side of my personality here but as you know most of my friends are lefty, liberal, arty, queer types. So I'm for sure not the same person on here that I am in real life.
This is a place to vent and talk politics and argue ideas with other geeks when some of us don't have that outlet IRL.
I hang out on a few online forums and PB is the place I come to if I want an intellectual debate. Maybe it doesn't seem that way sometimes, but have you seen the midwits on Twitter and Reddit?
Yes. Exactly the same
Reddit is good for very niche debate but it’s slow
The upvote/downvote system is rubbish as well. Promotes an echo chamber of views.
It’s great to discuss a lot of topics, particularly day to day advice, humour, hobbies/interests, pets etc etc. Politics and current affairs? Not sold.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
He was also a far better president than given credit for.
I'm not sure that's true. He did provide a moral anchor when the country needed it, and some of his eco policies were before their time. But I watched his "crisis of confidence" speech and I think he was in the wrong job. Don't get me wrong, I agreed with it, but it was more a preacher scolding his flock than a President speaking to his people. Steve Richards says that a PM should be a teacher, and Carter I think got the tone wrong
Carter and his Georgia team reportedly rubbed up the national Dem leaders in various wrong ways - SSI has some anecdotes.
He also was the extreme rarity of an elected President who suffered a serious primary challenge.
Yet another ridiculous decision in the boxing. This sport is in danger of bringing itself into such disrepute that its position in the Olympics must be at risk.
The guy is dangerous. How could anyone still support him?
I've heard on here he's a genius though!
I have just read the X account he has linked to. It is appalling. Full of racism and in particular unfiltered antisemitism. No subtlety. Blatant. So what the hell is Musk doing?
I don’t think racism is a red line for Musk.
Clearly not, although the anti semitism is quite shocking. I'm shocked it is allowed. Have any off you drilled down to the linked account and looked at the postings and videos. Worth a trip if you want to be disgusted.
I stopped being shocked by him a while back. Genius engineer; otherwise a lowlife.
Not Musk, but the account he linked to. Appalling.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
I gave up on this piece of shit post when you said “ Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so”. I didn’t say that, you know I didn’t say that, and you’re just having a tantrum. I’ve made my point, provided evidence for my assertions in the form of near contemporary polling, and you come back with a pile of steaming invective. Go to bed.
(PS I’d just turned 5 when Callahan stopped being PM so almost all of my memories of him are post politics)
"Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%."
Public capable of nuance and differentiating between peaceful protest and racist, murderous rioting… Shock! Horror!
Could someone please commission a poll in the Daily Mail saying that 97% want paediatricians hung, or something, to restore my lack of faith in humanity?
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Elite Athletics is one of those things where they really are super human. You could train and train and train, every day, you will never get anywhere close. There are other sports where enough application you can kinda of get in very low end ballpark e.g. with reasonable coordination and a lot of practice a large number of people can become a scratch golfer, the pros are still several shots a round better, but it isn't you wheezing at the side of the track after 20s (despite all your training) vs they blast out a 1500m in 3mins 30s.
I confess to being a tad disappointed by the “fastest men in the world” last night, at the Games, watching the 200m finals
I watched them and thought, here’s some guys who can run fast. There was no Wow factor. I contrast that with the time I first encountered live pro international rugby and thought Fuck me, these guys are huge and they are smashing each other to pieces
Track and field is a bit boring in reality, this is why it’s not popular outwith the Games
Modern rugby players are absolute units (plenty of suspicion there might be some widespread usage of the baking sodas at least before they hit the pro game).
I was at a game this season and I hadn't seen some of the players in the flesh before e.g. Joe Cokanasiga. He was warming up with a few other players and I thought well he isn't that big really, then the water bloke came up to him and I was like no, he is absolutely massive unit, its that all the rest of them are as well.
That was what was so remarkable about the late Rob Burrow. He was only about 5’5” and indeed was told at the beginning of his career that ‘he’d never make it’!
Yet another ridiculous decision in the boxing. This sport is in danger of bringing itself into such disrepute that its position in the Olympics must be at risk.
It already is, right now it's unlikely to come back for 2028.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
Another ridiculous decision in the boxing . Time to ditch it from the Olympics .
If he had been behind going into that final round you would have thought fair enough but he clearly edged the last round and was already ahead. Just ridiculous.
Yet another ridiculous decision in the boxing. This sport is in danger of bringing itself into such disrepute that its position in the Olympics must be at risk.
Yes but the next general election is four or five years away. Things that ought to matter, often don't.
Indeed
However isn’t it a political truism that perceptions are crucially formed in the first 100 days of office? And after that they become hard to shift
Starmer has been given a seriously tough test on his second month of office. I don’t envy him. However he came in with baggage that is entirely his own fault - taking the knee AFTER the BLM riots
The British public believe he is making a hash of this major crisis. Pompous but ineffective, hypocritical and bloviating?
He may find this perception hangs around
That said there are exceptions to the rule. Thatcher was massively unpopular at first but became more popular over time
Yes, for me the problem isn't so much the pomposity - hard to disapprove of rioters without sounding pompous - or the ineffectuality - a common failing in the face of rioting - but that he seemed so equivocal about rioting until it was poor white people doing it.
These aren't poor white people. They're violent racists.
These things, sadly, are not mutually exclusive
Sure. But the poorness and whiteness isn't what's causing the problem. It's the racially aggravated violence. You'll see this when cases get to court. Nobody is going to be charged with being poor and white.
There is a clear link between the Brexit vote, the Reform vote in 2024 and these riots. Yes the riots are being inflated by bad actors on socials, but those being whipped up are the same ones who thought Brexit would fix their ills (it didn't), that Reform would fix their ills (it won't) and that immigration and immigrants are part of the problem (possibly a small part is true - if you move a million more people into a country, housing becomes scarcer and services harder to access). But rioting won't fix that.*
*Except it might fix YOUR housing for a while, at His Majesties Pleasure...
There's usually a socioeconomic context to public disorder and this is no exception. But I'm talking about the people leading and avidly participating in racially targeted violence. Attacks on Mosques, Asylum Seekers etc. These people have no legitimate cause or context for their actions. It awards them an unmerited gravitas to suggest otherwise.
Yes. I find it utterly astonishing that folk can equate seeking to burn down hotels, knowing that there are residents and staff in them, with any other form of protest that I've witnessed over the last 50 years.
It's attempted mass murder, and for all the wrongdoing witnessed on other 'protests' I've never seen anything as wicked.
I was at the BLM riots in Trafalgar Sq in 2020 and I saw multiple beatings of white people which, if the coppers hadn’t leapt in and saved the victim, would have likely turned into murder
That’s what I saw. I was there
Two days later, Starmer took the knee
Yet you still claim to have voted for Starmer last month, and not, say, for RefUK...
Do you know I don't altogether believe you.
Doesn't quite scan, does it.
So, what, now you don’t believe me? That I voted for this twat Starmer? What would I gain from lying to you about my vote?! What do I care what you think of my vote? You seriously over estimate your salience in my mind
Well your vote is at odds with your politics. So if it's true you voted Labour you either betrayed your politics or you disrespected the democratic process.
Oh good grief, could you get more pompous?
There was a serious reason for my vote, too. I want - or wanted - Starmer to have a big majority. The worst possible outcome for Britain was a feeble NOM Labour govt
I had hopes (maybe I still do) that Labour - eg - might reform the NHS. For that you need the confidence of many MPs
Ok. So there's a 'better you' which we don't have the pleasure of on here. One which isn't obsessed with race and nationhood and borders etc.
That's plausible and I'm going to plause it because it comforts me.
Do you really think the guy on here is my true persona?
Ask someone on PB that’s met me. there are a few. I come on here for debate and argument and to have my views vigorously challenged and to do the same to others. Some times I come on here just for company
Of course I am spikier on here than in real life. Do you think I rant at my friends and family about the EU or tax rates or illegal migration? But, isn’t this true of all of us? - we come on here to offload and to spar, to chat with an intensity that would be ugly or nerdy in actual human company
This is your lack of imagination showing. But it’s fine. I have just had 9 oysters in a brasserie and the world is sweet
The only persona on here that is 100% true to life is @Dura_Ace. Or at least I hope it is
"Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly triggered by the Southport murders. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%."
Though from the question phrasing that includes the counterprotestors against the EDL yobs.
Another ridiculous decision in the boxing . Time to ditch it from the Olympics .
If he had been behind going into that final round you would have thought fair enough but he clearly edged the last round and was already ahead. Just ridiculous.
You might almost believe some judges stand to make a bit of money. All very odd this year.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
I gave up on this piece of shit post when you said “ Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so”. I didn’t say that, you know I didn’t say that, and you’re just having a tantrum. I’ve made my point, provided evidence for my assertions in the form of near contemporary polling, and you come back with a pile of steaming invective. Go to bed.
(PS I’d just turned 5 when Callahan stopped being PM so almost all of my memories of him are post politics)
On tv, you never get real understanding of the speed that 800 / 1500m runners go at. We know that 100m is blindly fast, we can kinda of comprehend that. Most normal humans wouldn't keep up with 800 / 1500m pace even sprinting for a 10-20s.
The BBC did a brilliant piece where they had enthusiastic amateur athletes seeing how long they could keep up with Keeley's average pace (over 26kph as I recall). I think the best did 45 seconds. Some couldn't even get to that pace at all. It is incredible.
Elite Athletics is one of those things where they really are super human. You could train and train and train, every day, you will never get anywhere close. There are other sports where enough application you can kinda of get in very low end ballpark e.g. with reasonable coordination and a lot of practice a large number of people can become a scratch golfer, the pros are still several shots a round better, but it isn't you wheezing at the side of the track after 20s (despite all your training) vs they blast out a 1500m in 3mins 30s.
I confess to being a tad disappointed by the “fastest men in the world” last night, at the Games, watching the 200m finals
I watched them and thought, here’s some guys who can run fast. There was no Wow factor. I contrast that with the time I first encountered live pro international rugby and thought Fuck me, these guys are huge and they are smashing each other to pieces
Track and field is a bit boring in reality, this is why it’s not popular outwith the Games
Modern rugby players are absolute units (plenty of suspicion there might be some widespread usage of the baking sodas at least before they hit the pro game).
I was at a game this season and I hadn't seen some of the players in the flesh before e.g. Joe Cokanasiga. He was warming up with a few other players and I thought well he isn't that big really, then the water bloke came up to him and I was like no, he is absolutely massive unit, its that all the rest of them are as well.
Got a seat on the front row by the tunnel at the RL World Cup Oz V England 2017. By heck the Burgess brothers are big lads. And they are generally smaller than many of the Union guys.
Edit. Which makes Rob Burrow all the braver and more tragic.
It used to be the opposite. Union used to attract all shapes and sizes but now…
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
Wrt to point one first sentence. Isn't that actual, practical "levelling up" in practice? Balances out London weighting too.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
Valuations wise I think precision would be more of a problem than something straightforward and generalised. Precision can be appealed whereas a more basic test is harder to challenge.
Either use a square metre living space measure - that’s how French property taxation is at least partly calculated - or some sort of Rightmove-Zoopla formula.
The regional differences are the main problem with a flat 0.5%. I’d suggest letting local authorities set the rate and have central government determine the valuation methodology. And give LAs or regions much more tax devolution so that we get more healthy regional tax competition.
Another ridiculous decision in the boxing . Time to ditch it from the Olympics .
If he had been behind going into that final round you would have thought fair enough but he clearly edged the last round and was already ahead. Just ridiculous.
You might almost believe some judges stand to make a bit of money. All very odd this year.
As things stand, Boxing is not on the schedule for Los Angeles. This is because the IOC has had enough of its crooked ways. It would be a sad loss, but you can understand why it is likely to happen.
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
I think that’s right. Personally I think the banding system is probably the right approach, though the higher bands could perhaps pay a bit more.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
What do you do about things such as - reworking a property to improve energy efficiency can increase the value substantially
Guido is talking about Council tax switching to a proportional system of x %(0.5%) of the current value. I suspect it's going to happen because changing the bands is impossible as even he points out...
I'd say there may be some weasel words in that from Paul Staines. He's quoting a report from the CSJ, which was founded by Iain Duncan Smith, Tim Montgomerie, Mark Florman and Philippa Stroud.
Havnig said that, a switch to 0.5% of market value would be a huge improvement imo, which if it includes an abolition of Stamp Duty as proposed by its main proponents will be in the financial interests of a large majority.
The main thing I'd say for RR and KS is not to be panicked by a bit of rhetoric from the Right.
Council Tax raises £46.7 billion according to the OBR or about 1.7% of national income so not huge in the cosmic scheme of things. Not sure how which Business Rates raises - way back in 2014-15, it was twice as much as Council Tax but that's probably changed with the pamdemic.
The plan, AIUI, is 0.5% on occupied residential property and 2.5% on empty homes based on a revaluation. There are roughly 24 million homes in the UK.
Doing a crude calculation on Stodge Towers it would mean £250 extra per year.
The % of Council Revenue coming from Council Tax has increased, at the same time as funding levels have been restricted.
That is because Councils have been kept on a starvation diet since ~2010, in both England and Scotland. But more so in England. In Scotland (one of our North Britons such as @Eabhal will tell us) I believe they had a freeze in cash terms for 6-7 consecutive years.
If we want effective and capable Councils they need a fairly big funding boost, and it will take time to build capacity.
I'd say that conservatively Local Authorities need a funding boost from current levels of something like a quarter to a third in the short term, just for recovery to 2010 levels.
The 0.5% suggestion is interesting but it seems to me there are a few challenges:
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax. 2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year 3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
The assumption in the above is all the money raised would go back to local Government - we all know it won't. Some of it will likely go to the general exchequer to help reduce the deficit.
1) - yes but lateral transfers happen in the existing system. There's a balancing act between what revenue and expenditure and it would be best taken out of the hands of Ministers and dealt with by a wholly independent non-partisan body such as CIPFA perhaps.
2) - there's sales data but you're right. In 1990 it was a panic approach. There would need to be a mechanism whereby if you improve your home (a loft extension for example) and the value increased that would be reflected in the property tax. It sounds like plenty of good work for the valuation industry.
3) - fair point but no one is suggesting the property tax would be the be-all and end-all of local Government finance. Things like parking charges and other local income sources would have to continue.
Walz has two great advantages as a politician: He is not a lawyer -- and he is a winning football coach. (Most Americans dislike lawyers -- and love winning coaches, especially football coaches.) "After returning, Walz took a job teaching and coaching in Alliance, Nebraska, where he met his wife, Gwen Whipple, a fellow teacher.[11] He and Gwen married in 1994, and moved two years later to Mankato in Minnesota, his wife's home state,[11] where he worked as a geography teacher and coach at Mankato West High School.[10] He coached the football team to its first state championship in 1999." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walz
And, then there is this: "Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."
Good comment. Neither part of the "liberal elitist" tag is going to stick.
Early signs are that the Trump campaign is already flailing around, trying to find an effective attack.
I quite like the "first non-lawyer on a Democratic ticket since Jimmy Carter" line.
Average blood pressure in the posh bit of Sheffield increases a little.
It isn't a good idea for Dems to mention Jimmy Carter.
It’s almost universally agreed that he’s America’s best former President, doing much better work after he left office than he did in office. His reputation has definitely solid, even amongst Republicans -
John Profumo did excellent work after leaving politics as well.
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
I disagree. The polling I have linked to suggests that Americans today have a very favourable opinion of Carter. The fact he was unpopular 44 years ago doesn’t matter. He’s popular now. They’ve changed their mind.
The polling is about post-presidency not presidency ie about non-political work not political.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
I could equally point out to you that opinions change and 18 year olds in 1980 are nearly pensioners now. Most of that electorate is dead. Most voters only remember his post presidency. As I mentioned, according to YouGov, he is the most popular politician in America now. That takes into account his record in and out of office. Carter’s reputation now is very different to the one when he left office.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
I gave up on this piece of shit post when you said “ Okay, if you want to live in a fantasy world where the Carter presidency is now viewed as a golden age then do so”. I didn’t say that, you know I didn’t say that, and you’re just having a tantrum. I’ve made my point, provided evidence for my assertions in the form of near contemporary polling, and you come back with a pile of steaming invective. Go to bed.
(PS I’d just turned 5 when Callahan stopped being PM so almost all of my memories of him are post politics)
Look we all have our beliefs and prejudices and wishes but accepting reality is always vital.
Jimmy Carter, a decent bloke who would likely be a good neighbour but whose Presidency was deemed a failure by the voters.
Do you know the only other one term Presidency a party has had in the last century ?
Donald Trump. Although even Trump didn't suffer the thrashing that Carter did.
Delusional. And lacking even in the basics. Bush Senior and Johnson both had one term presidencies (Johnson having completed Kennedy’s) and now Biden. Top tip, if you don’t even know the recent one term Presidents, you shouldn’t be posting on American politics. You are out of your depth.
Except the truth and stop having a tantrum. Please. You keep posting a Wikipedia article that references a 44 year old election. The reality is that in the intervening 44 years his presidency has been positively reassessed and, today, association with Carter is sought after - which is why the Bidens had that famous photo with the Carters. How much more evidence of this do I have to post before you change your powerfully emotionally, but not logically, held view.
Take the loss on this one and move on. You’re making yourself look more stupid than you are. You can’t keep relying on the same fucking Wikipedia article for the rest of your life. Insulting me won’t change the facts.
Comments
Say a 'good' baseline time for the 100m is 10s
At that speed, the 1500m would take 150 seconds, or 2m30s. The Olympic record just set was 3.27, or a minute slower. 70% of the speed for 15 times the distance.
As for marathon: if we take the record to be a round 2 hours, that is 7,200 seconds for 42,200m. At 100m pace it would would be about 70 minutes. So we have lost under half the pace for 422 times the distance.
(Hope I've got the maths right... would have been more sensible to convert to m/s...)
That's a credit to both men - one that some more recent politicians should try to copy.
But that doesn't stop them having had a disastrous effect while in political office.
Which is why the Dems shouldn't be pointing out similarities between Walz and Carter.
“Can you run 400m at Kipchoge pace?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
EDIT: According to this he’s now America’s most popular politician overall. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Jimmy_Carter
Will be by the weekend if that's ok.
I watched them and thought, here’s some guys who can run fast. There was no Wow factor. I contrast that with the time I first encountered live pro international rugby and thought Fuck me, these guys are huge and they are smashing each other to pieces
Track and field is a bit boring in reality, this is why it’s not popular outwith the Games
Mike Powell 8.95 1991, Bob Beamon 8.90 1968.
Today’s athletes, despite the advances in track and shoe technology, aren’t close to what Beamon did 66 years ago.
Walz is running to be Vice-President, a political position, not to do humanitarian work in future decades.
Do you really not see the difference ???
Genius engineer; otherwise a lowlife.
--
A total of 51 officers were injured in the violence outside a Holiday Inn Express hotel in Rotherham on Sunday, South Yorkshire Police say.
Officers received injuries including broken bones, concussion, bruising, and head wounds and police horses and dogs were also hurt, the force says.
It adds that officers unable to return to frontline duties are now part of the team gathering evidence to secure arrests and charges.
Assistant Chief Constable David Hartley says he is proud of the officers' "bravery and resilience" and they are "truly grateful for the kind messages of thanks and support".
He adds: "If you were involved in the outright acts of violence and thuggery on Sunday, let me be clear - we are coming for you."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cw5yyynpwnzt
--
Any politician incapable of recognising that this kind of violence is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable, should be kicked out of our parliament.
Meanwhile Musk continues to link and re-tweet to some horribly antisemitic sources.
The basic problem you have is that you’re relying on polling from 1980 while I’ve cited polls from the last 9 years. You’re going on expired intelligence. The dial has moved and he’s been positively reassessed.
I sorta play up to that side of my personality here but as you know most of my friends are lefty, liberal, arty, queer types. So I'm for sure not the same person on here that I am in real life.
This is a place to vent and talk politics and argue ideas with other geeks when some of us don't have that outlet IRL.
I hang out on a few online forums and PB is the place I come to if I want an intellectual debate. Maybe it doesn't seem that way sometimes, but have you seen the midwits on Twitter and Reddit?
Britain becalmed and unable to make up ground on the Australians.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/03/jimmy-carter-vote-kamala-harris-100th-birthday
God speed to him, whether he succeeds or not.
Reddit is good for very niche debate but it’s slow
https://www.threads.net/@vivllainous/post/C-TZfctS7pz
I was at a game this season and I hadn't seen some of the players in the flesh before e.g. Joe Cokanasiga. He was warming up with a few other players and I thought well he isn't that big really, then the water bloke came up to him and I was like no, he is absolutely massive unit, its that all the rest of them are as well.
https://x.com/lembitopik/status/1820897902807675027
“… social media is similarly seen as highly responsible for the riots, with 86% of the public viewing them as a key driving force in the unfolding unrest. More conventional news media is also blamed by seven in ten Britons (69%) as having driven the riots to some degree, with only one in five (19%) believing they aren’t responsible.”
I think the public take a more critical view of media, both modern and legacy, than we give credit for.
You do know that the 'polling from 1980' was an election in which over 80m took part for the most important job in the world as opposed to a meaningless opinion poll of a thousand people about something else entirely ?
Do you really think that when Jimmy Carter is mentioned that people don't remember him first as being President ?
Do you really think that Carter's humanitarian work, admirable as it might be, is anywhere near as important as what he did as President ?
Perhaps you also remember Jim Callaghan for what he did after politics and not for him being prime minister in the late 1970s.
By heck the Burgess brothers are big lads.
And they are generally smaller than many of the Union guys.
Edit. Which makes Rob Burrow all the braver and more tragic.
It’s great to discuss a lot of topics, particularly day to day advice, humour, hobbies/interests, pets etc etc. Politics and current affairs? Not sold.
He also was the extreme rarity of an elected President who suffered a serious primary challenge.
(PS I’d just turned 5 when Callahan stopped being PM so almost all of my memories of him are post politics)
Could someone please commission a poll in the Daily Mail saying that 97% want paediatricians hung, or something, to restore my lack of faith in humanity?
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1820871075783143813
1) Switching to this system would lead to increased tax in London and SE and reduced tax in the North. How do you make sure that each council has enough money to spend? It sounds like more lateral transfers would be required but then it becomes a less local tax.
2) How do you decide how much each property is worth? In the 1990s, the valuations were done by driving by. The fact there were bands meant into didn't matter if the valuations were slightly out. However, if you are charging 0.5% then you need more precise valuations e.g. a 5k value difference is worth £25 a year
3) How often would valuations be updated? Again there could be issues for council budgets as house prices change e.g. 10% rise=extra money to spend, 10% fall=austerity
..Which makes , ironically and enjoyably , for quite a relaxing popcorn-type thread at a difficult time.
You're just upset because the reality is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
Why can't you just accept it.
Look we all have our beliefs and prejudices and wishes but accepting reality is always vital.
Jimmy Carter, a decent bloke who would likely be a good neighbour but whose Presidency was deemed a failure by the voters.
Do you know the only other one term Presidency a party has had in the last century ?
Donald Trump. Although even Trump didn't suffer the thrashing that Carter did.
The issue with it is that it has never been updated and there’s never been a good time for a government to force a revaluation.
If Labour are smart they’ll get a revaluation through now and then they’ll set up an independent body to conduct the revaluations at ten year intervals, a bit like boundary commissions. It might not stop politicians campaigning to freeze the valuations but it will make it politically harder to do so.
And create an automatic revaluation once a house is extended. That can’t be too difficult to do, just tie it into the building control process.
There may be various biases in action.
Isn't that actual, practical "levelling up" in practice?
Balances out London weighting too.
Either use a square metre living space measure - that’s how French property taxation is at least partly calculated - or some sort of Rightmove-Zoopla formula.
The regional differences are the main problem with a flat 0.5%. I’d suggest letting local authorities set the rate and have central government determine the valuation methodology. And give LAs or regions much more tax devolution so that we get more healthy regional tax competition.
?
1) - yes but lateral transfers happen in the existing system. There's a balancing act between what revenue and expenditure and it would be best taken out of the hands of Ministers and dealt with by a wholly independent non-partisan body such as CIPFA perhaps.
2) - there's sales data but you're right. In 1990 it was a panic approach. There would need to be a mechanism whereby if you improve your home (a loft extension for example) and the value increased that would be reflected in the property tax. It sounds like plenty of good work for the valuation industry.
3) - fair point but no one is suggesting the property tax would be the be-all and end-all of local Government finance. Things like parking charges and other local income sources would have to continue.
Except the truth and stop having a tantrum. Please. You keep posting a Wikipedia article that references a 44 year old election. The reality is that in the intervening 44 years his presidency has been positively reassessed and, today, association with Carter is sought after - which is why the Bidens had that famous photo with the Carters. How much more evidence of this do I have to post before you change your powerfully emotionally, but not logically, held view.
Take the loss on this one and move on. You’re making yourself look more stupid than you are. You can’t keep relying on the same fucking Wikipedia article for the rest of your life. Insulting me won’t change the facts.