Over the past two decades, people report a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/121937/202992/Changes-in-Need-for-Uniqueness-From-2000-Until?searchresult=1 Recent research and polling suggest that people may be more reluctant to express themselves and stand out than in previous years, but few studies have examined such societal trends in a systematic way. We examined changes in need for uniqueness among 1,339,160 Internet respondents from 2000 and 2020. Across the 20-year period, participants who completed the survey more recently reported a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. For individuals, these factors then might have resulted in lower levels of rule breaking tendencies, a heightened concern about what others think about them, and a lower willingness to defend their beliefs publicly. This reticence might stem from concurrent increases in social anxiety and social monitoring more generally.Theoretical insights, studies of other adjacent psychological characteristics, and public polling all point to the possibility that individuals feel that being unique and expressing uniqueness might compromise their ability to fit in with others and lead to being ostracized."
Damn, that's saddening. I realise people who think they are God's Special Snowflake are annoying, but going from that to Tall Poppy Syndrome is going from one extreme to another. ☹️
It’s a really interesting story. It seems to chime with experience. The 1990s and noughties were peak liberalism. Berlin Wall down, let the good times roll. Gen X. Peak individualism. Then along came the financial crisis, and Chinese superpower status, and the apocalytic promise of climate change, and people started to move both left and right and shook off their individualism in favour of group identities.
I hope we can get back to the good times again. Cant be doing with this new group thymos. Give me atomised individualism coupled with live and let live tolerance any day.
SPOILER: it’s never coming back
It’ll be back. 1920s, 1960s, 1990s/00s. We should be due another such era in around 2035-40.
Over the past two decades, people report a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/121937/202992/Changes-in-Need-for-Uniqueness-From-2000-Until?searchresult=1 Recent research and polling suggest that people may be more reluctant to express themselves and stand out than in previous years, but few studies have examined such societal trends in a systematic way. We examined changes in need for uniqueness among 1,339,160 Internet respondents from 2000 and 2020. Across the 20-year period, participants who completed the survey more recently reported a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. For individuals, these factors then might have resulted in lower levels of rule breaking tendencies, a heightened concern about what others think about them, and a lower willingness to defend their beliefs publicly. This reticence might stem from concurrent increases in social anxiety and social monitoring more generally.Theoretical insights, studies of other adjacent psychological characteristics, and public polling all point to the possibility that individuals feel that being unique and expressing uniqueness might compromise their ability to fit in with others and lead to being ostracized."
Damn, that's saddening. I realise people who think they are God's Special Snowflake are annoying, but going from that to Tall Poppy Syndrome is going from one extreme to another. ☹️
It’s a really interesting story. It seems to chime with experience. The 1990s and noughties were peak liberalism. Berlin Wall down, let the good times roll. Gen X. Peak individualism. Then along came the financial crisis, and Chinese superpower status, and the apocalytic promise of climate change, and people started to move both left and right and shook off their individualism in favour of group identities.
I hope we can get back to the good times again. Cant be doing with this new group thymos. Give me atomised individualism coupled with live and let live tolerance any day.
SPOILER: it’s never coming back
It’ll be back. 1920s, 1960s, 1990s/00s. We should be due another such era in around 2035-40.
No, I fear we are the Romans of about 390AD, reassuring each other that the Empire will be fine, and “this is just ups and downs, chill out”
Sometimes things that seem near-eternal really do end
A group of advertisers, called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), have “discontinued” activities, Business Insider reports, citing an email sent to members. The group said it had limited money, and was focused on fighting the antitrust lawsuit filed against it by X.
Over the past two decades, people report a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/121937/202992/Changes-in-Need-for-Uniqueness-From-2000-Until?searchresult=1 Recent research and polling suggest that people may be more reluctant to express themselves and stand out than in previous years, but few studies have examined such societal trends in a systematic way. We examined changes in need for uniqueness among 1,339,160 Internet respondents from 2000 and 2020. Across the 20-year period, participants who completed the survey more recently reported a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. For individuals, these factors then might have resulted in lower levels of rule breaking tendencies, a heightened concern about what others think about them, and a lower willingness to defend their beliefs publicly. This reticence might stem from concurrent increases in social anxiety and social monitoring more generally.Theoretical insights, studies of other adjacent psychological characteristics, and public polling all point to the possibility that individuals feel that being unique and expressing uniqueness might compromise their ability to fit in with others and lead to being ostracized."
Damn, that's saddening. I realise people who think they are God's Special Snowflake are annoying, but going from that to Tall Poppy Syndrome is going from one extreme to another. ☹️
It’s a really interesting story. It seems to chime with experience. The 1990s and noughties were peak liberalism. Berlin Wall down, let the good times roll. Gen X. Peak individualism. Then along came the financial crisis, and Chinese superpower status, and the apocalytic promise of climate change, and people started to move both left and right and shook off their individualism in favour of group identities.
I hope we can get back to the good times again. Cant be doing with this new group thymos. Give me atomised individualism coupled with live and let live tolerance any day.
SPOILER: it’s never coming back
It’ll be back. 1920s, 1960s, 1990s/00s. We should be due another such era in around 2035-40.
No, I fear we are the Romans of about 390AD, reassuring each other that the Empire will be fine, and “this is just ups and downs, chill out”
Sometimes things that seem near-eternal really do end
Whereas there have been "the end is nigh" nihilists like yourself for thousands of years.
As many debates as possible is worth it for him I'd think. He's incoherent and nuts but debates did for Biden, no longer puts off his supporters, and Harris might stumble in the face of his bluster.
The risk is independents finally see him as old, weak, and crazy, but without big events he might struggle there anyway since he spends most of his time golfing not campaigning.
He could always do the Fox one (if Harris agrees), hope the hosts worshipful saliva sees him perform well compared to Harris, then pull out of the others.
This is where the decisive outcomes are actually more likely than they look, because if one candidate is a little bit behind they'll start to take bigger risks that also make it more likely that they lose big.
Scrapping winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners could save a third less than the Chancellor has claimed, a former pensions minister has warned.
rcs1000 asked: "BTW, what did Trump say in his press conference?"
Glossolalia?
(Sorry, couldn't resist. Years ago, I decided that, not being paid to do so, I would skip listening to the man, so I didn't watch today's news conferencer.)
Over the past two decades, people report a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/121937/202992/Changes-in-Need-for-Uniqueness-From-2000-Until?searchresult=1 Recent research and polling suggest that people may be more reluctant to express themselves and stand out than in previous years, but few studies have examined such societal trends in a systematic way. We examined changes in need for uniqueness among 1,339,160 Internet respondents from 2000 and 2020. Across the 20-year period, participants who completed the survey more recently reported a lower need for uniqueness, particularly in terms of not wanting to defend their beliefs in public forums and caring more about what others think about them. For individuals, these factors then might have resulted in lower levels of rule breaking tendencies, a heightened concern about what others think about them, and a lower willingness to defend their beliefs publicly. This reticence might stem from concurrent increases in social anxiety and social monitoring more generally.Theoretical insights, studies of other adjacent psychological characteristics, and public polling all point to the possibility that individuals feel that being unique and expressing uniqueness might compromise their ability to fit in with others and lead to being ostracized."
Damn, that's saddening. I realise people who think they are God's Special Snowflake are annoying, but going from that to Tall Poppy Syndrome is going from one extreme to another. ☹️
It’s a really interesting story. It seems to chime with experience. The 1990s and noughties were peak liberalism. Berlin Wall down, let the good times roll. Gen X. Peak individualism. Then along came the financial crisis, and Chinese superpower status, and the apocalytic promise of climate change, and people started to move both left and right and shook off their individualism in favour of group identities.
I hope we can get back to the good times again. Cant be doing with this new group thymos. Give me atomised individualism coupled with live and let live tolerance any day.
SPOILER: it’s never coming back
It’ll be back. 1920s, 1960s, 1990s/00s. We should be due another such era in around 2035-40.
Perhaps uncoincidently, when most of the Boomers have died off. Is it a generational thing?
As many debates as possible is worth it for him I'd think. He's incoherent and nuts but debates did for Biden, no longer puts off his supporters, and Harris might stumble in the face of his bluster.
The risk is independents finally see him as old, weak, and crazy, but without big events he might struggle there anyway since he spends most of his time golfing not campaigning.
He could always do the Fox one (if Harris agrees), hope the hosts worshipful saliva sees him perform well compared to Harris, then pull out of the others.
This is where the decisive outcomes are actually more likely than they look, because if one candidate is a little bit behind they'll start to take bigger risks that also make it more likely that they lose big.
Part of the explanation for why laying the middle of the seat distribution in FPTP elections, far out from the actual date, is consistently profitable.
Just picked up an email saying that my phone service - which gives me free phone calls all the time including to mobiles, and over which my internet and TV service comes, is losing its starter discount.
What is a good plan these days?
No idea but check signal quality and bandwidth. A few years back I had both Vodafone and EE, primarily for data, and EE was far better. Several years later and wherever you are, things might be different.
It's landline, and TV is in the house via wifi to Roku sticks.
Just picked up an email saying that my phone service - which gives me free phone calls all the time including to mobiles, and over which my internet and TV service comes, is losing its starter discount.
What is a good plan these days?
No idea but check signal quality and bandwidth. A few years back I had both Vodafone and EE, primarily for data, and EE was far better. Several years later and wherever you are, things might be different.
It's landline, and TV is in the house via wifi to Roku sticks.
Youfibre or cityfibre would be my suggestion if they cover you area. If youfibre there is a £100 ( to each of us ) refer a friend scheme if you sign up using http://aklam.io/kecDst
As many debates as possible is worth it for him I'd think. He's incoherent and nuts but debates did for Biden, no longer puts off his supporters, and Harris might stumble in the face of his bluster.
The risk is independents finally see him as old, weak, and crazy, but without big events he might struggle there anyway since he spends most of his time golfing not campaigning.
He could always do the Fox one (if Harris agrees), hope the hosts worshipful saliva sees him perform well compared to Harris, then pull out of the others.
This is where the decisive outcomes are actually more likely than they look, because if one candidate is a little bit behind they'll start to take bigger risks that also make it more likely that they lose big.
Part of the explanation for why laying the middle of the seat distribution in FPTP elections, far out from the actual date, is consistently profitable.
Before my time for political betting, but I'd be curious if that was the case in 2001.
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Good grief, no your "heritage" is absolutely not deemed worthy of protection from this government - or any other.
The modern world respects freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience, not putting your heritage above the rights of the rest of us.
Update to Medal Table, with 3 points for a Gold, 2 for a Silver, and 1 for a Bronze:
G S B Total points United States 90 76 35 201 China 87 50 19 156 France 42 38 21 101 Australia 54 28 13 95 Great Britain 39 34 21 94 Japan 39 14 13 66 South Korea 39 16 7 62 Italy 30 22 9 61 Netherlands 33 12 8 53 Germany 27 16 5 48
Ukraine, or should I say Russia now since one of their provinces has been outright invaded.
I'm still trying to work out the strategic front objectives for Ukraine. They have two of their most capable brigades involved, Russian sources claim further units are in a position to join the offensive so you'd like to think this is not a political project and has proper strategic aims.
Whilst the Ukrainians started off in an E-NE direction they have wheeled south over the last 24 hours but its unclear if this is just to maintain the flank or they are literally attacking down that direction to trap Russian formations on the Ukraine side of the border.
What is striking is that the understanding that the Russians have left large areas around the borders largely without formation forces look to be confirmed. They seem to have no reserve formation forces in the area to provide a blocking or counter offensive force, it appears to be a mix of National Guard, FSB, border guards, and smaller military units ie all motorised infantry. Where are the large battalion/brigade reserves in the area? If they are there, they appear to be asleep. There is also limited signs of tactical aviation being heavily used, a key area of Russian advantage, and the first thing you'd be expect to be thrown into an attempt to slow or halt the advance.
The Russians seem determined to not redeploy frontline forces from other fronts but whether that holds or not we should know with 48 hours.
Ukrainian OPSEC has been superb, which is also a sign things are going well.
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Good grief, no your "heritage" is absolutely not deemed worthy of protection from this government - or any other.
The modern world respects freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience, not putting your heritage above the rights of the rest of us.
Well clearly this Starmer government doesn't otherwise it would not be about to make criticising Islam a criminal offence!
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
Which can all be quite adequately be dealt with by existing criminal damage and arson laws, which would cover similar attacks against churches too.
There is no need for Islamaphobia laws to appease the Labour core vote and criminalise those writing books or articles criticising Islam. Theoretically Salman Rushdie even could be arrested under this proposed new law
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
Which can all be quite adequately be dealt with by criminal damage and arson laws, which would cover similar attacks against churches too.
There is no need for Islamaphobia laws to appease the Labour core vote and criminalise those writing books or articles criminalising Islam. Theoretically Salman Rushdie even could be arrested under this proposed new law
I suspect that is going to be the test applied by sceptics.
Quite a good one, too.
However, until something concrete materialises, I'm not interested in getting involved in a theoretical debate. The tele article is spectacularly thin on sources. Doesn't look to me like they have anyone remotely close to the Labour Party. Very poor.
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
Which can all be quite adequately be dealt with by existing criminal damage and arson laws, which would cover similar attacks against churches too.
There is no need for Islamaphobia laws to appease the Labour core vote and criminalise those writing books or articles criticising Islam. Theoretically Salman Rushdie even could be arrested under this proposed new law
You seem to know what this new law (if it's even a law) contains, what's the definition of islamophobia this government is bringing in?
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
Which can all be quite adequately be dealt with by criminal damage and arson laws, which would cover similar attacks against churches too.
There is no need for Islamaphobia laws to appease the Labour core vote and criminalise those writing books or articles criminalising Islam. Theoretically Salman Rushdie even could be arrested under this proposed new law
I suspect that is going to be the test applied by sceptics.
Quite a good one, too.
However, until something concrete materialises, I'm not interested in getting involved in a theoretical debate. The tele article is spectacularly thin on sources. Doesn't look to me like they have anyone remotely close to the Labour Party. Very poor.
Labour Party I meant "government."
Should have read:
"Doesn't look to me like they have anyone remotely close to the government / insight into the thinking inside government, right now. Very poor."
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
Which can all be quite adequately be dealt with by criminal damage and arson laws, which would cover similar attacks against churches too.
There is no need for Islamaphobia laws to appease the Labour core vote and criminalise those writing books or articles criminalising Islam. Theoretically Salman Rushdie even could be arrested under this proposed new law
I suspect that is going to be the test applied by sceptics.
Quite a good one, too.
However, until something concrete materialises, I'm not interested in getting involved in a theoretical debate. The tele article is spectacularly thin on sources. Doesn't look to me like they have anyone remotely close to the Labour Party. Very poor.
Labour Party I meant "government."
Should have read:
"Doesn't look to me like they have anyone remotely close to the government / insight into the thinking inside government, right now. Very poor."
Also, remember there's a tory leadership election on!
Some interesting agendas / factions becoming apparent.
I'm still trying to work out the strategic front objectives for Ukraine. They have two of their most capable brigades involved, Russian sources claim further units are in a position to join the offensive so you'd like to think this is not a political project and has proper strategic aims.
We know that they wish to control the Anomaly. What we do not know is for how long, and to what purpose.
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
It goes without saying that you shouldn't introduce laws that just refer to one religion, or a certain number of religions. Laws should apply to all of them.
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
It goes without saying that you shouldn't introduce laws that just refer to one religion, or a certain number of religions. Laws should apply to all of them.
I should imagine this definition of Islamophobia will be regarded by those in favour as directly analogous to the definition of antisemitism previously adopted.
This is the only post-riot arrest that troubles me, so far
The 55 year old woman that misidentified the Southport attacker. What if she simply made a mistake? Are people going to do time for inaccurate social media remarks?
Half of PB would get life sentences
“BREAKING: A 55-year-old woman from near Chester has been arrested on suspicion of a number of offences relating to a social media post containing inaccurate information about the identity of the Southport attacker, Cheshire Police has said.
What isn't clear is where the dodgy name started. Without all social medias investigating, it is very difficult to tell if somebody is genuinely the one who made up nonsense or if they were repeating what they saw elsewhere on social media.
A fair few people have gone down the Telegram rabbit hole over COVID, I wouldn't be surprised if all sorts of crap circulates on there, which bubbles up onto twitter etc.
Yes. This case is on the edge of acceptability, for me
I can see the argument for prosecution: it’s the online equivalent of shouting Fire! in a theatre. But how on earth do you get evidence sufficient for a conviction, proving that she had malicious intent?
Emily Hewertson 🇬🇧 @emilyhewertson I was falsely identified as the person who threw a milkshake over Nigel Farage by a load of left-wing accounts, some of which were high profile with thousands of followers.
As a result of their false accusations I received a torrent of horrific abuse.
Do I think those who spread these malicious rumours should have been arrested? Absolutely not.
I have always strongly condemned speculating on identities until names are released by police. It is not helpful. But equally, this is a very slippery slope.
Won’t it ? That’s certainly true of the last decade, and is one if the reasons the last government was kicked out. Labour promised to do better; let’s see if they can live up to that. I’m not holding my breath, but I neither will I condemn them before they’ve had a reasonable chance.
rcs1000 asked: "BTW, what did Trump say in his press conference?"
Glossolalia?
(Sorry, couldn't resist. Years ago, I decided that, not being paid to do so, I would skip listening to the man, so I didn't watch today's news conferencer.)
Former Trump WH Communications Director @Scaramucci on Trump’s press conference today:
“That is a frustrated…frightened Donald Trump. He's looking at the poll numbers. It's a big tell when he does the accordion thing and tells you how great he's doing in the polls — that is a big tell for him...Let him keep talking, and he'll dig a bigger hole for himself. People will remember, 'I don't really want to go back to what was going on in this country in 2017 to January 2021” https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1821729785384734866
The Mooch is actually one of the better political journalists working in the US these days.
Islam is a load of bollocks, as is Christianity and any other organised religion.
And you can say that as protected free speech because there's no law against attacking beliefs and won't be.
You don't need to be a racist bigot to do so. You can debate a religion without attacking its adherents.
Let’s hope you’re right, eh?
Given that you’re often completely and risibly wrong, I’m not very consoled
Let’s see what they come up with. If it’s about attacks on those who follow Islam, as opposed to the legitimate right to criticise any religion, then perhaps it won’t be damaging at all. If it’s a de facto blasphemy law, then bollocks to it.
I have my doubts about it, too., but you can’t really condemn a law that’s yet to be drafted.
Starmer is an instinctive authoritarian with Woke tendencies. My fear is that they will err on the side of censorship
As @FrancisUrquhart points out, we already have plentiful laws about hate crimes, hate speech, and protected characteristics (too many, to my mind, but that’s where we are)
Just enforce those. Don’t make even more
I did post this analysis a few days ago about how things will go
"1. That Labour succeed in crushing the 'far right' and imposing its essentially 'woke' view of the world through a form of authoritarianism that enough people submit to such that it comprises a workable form of government, something similar to the 'Canada' model.
2. That Labour implode through its instinct to 'support the downtrodden', its sympathy with illegal asylum seekers/violent gangs resulting in popular discontent and loss of legitimacy, and thus leading to a popular and unstoppable 'far right' insurgency, something like the Trump model."
Introducing a new 'islamophobia' law , if that is what they are planning to do, is consistent with both scenarios, both of which they need to avoid doing.
Russian intelligence knew about the preparations for operation in Kursk region but Russian General Staff ignored those reports and hid information from Putin. The Kremlin is now very unhappy with Gerasimov - Bloomberg, citing a source close to Kremlin. https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1821621514929578307
Russian intelligence knew about the preparations for operation in Kursk region but Russian General Staff ignored those reports and hid information from Putin. The Kremlin is now very unhappy with Gerasimov - Bloomberg, citing a source close to Kremlin. https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1821621514929578307
The body language in that picture…
What are the odds Gerasimov falles off a balcony ?
Russian intelligence knew about the preparations for operation in Kursk region but Russian General Staff ignored those reports and hid information from Putin. The Kremlin is now very unhappy with Gerasimov - Bloomberg, citing a source close to Kremlin. https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1821621514929578307
The body language in that picture…
What are the odds Gerasimov falles off a balcony ?
Putin has always preferred incompetent military leaders, since the competent might present a threat to him. So I’m not sure.
RNC Chair Lara Trump says Kamala Harris had no qualifications to be VP but was chosen because she’s a woman, and she would never want to accept any position herself unless she got it strictly on merit. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1821518983863882169
RNC Chair Lara Trump says Kamala Harris had no qualifications to be VP but was chosen because she’s a woman, and she would never want to accept any position herself unless she got it strictly on merit. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1821518983863882169
Hilarious. Had to check what Lara Trump actually said:
“I'm a woman. Do me a favor: Don't ever give me a position based on the fact that I'm a woman. Either I earned it, or I didn't—and that's it. That's all I need.”
I suppose she means she had to marry Eric Trump to get where she is, so she has paid her dues, as Anastacia put it.
Well by the sounds of things, the laws on Islamophobia will be toughened, and also the cheap housing in these deprived areas will be used to house illegal asylum seekers, as the decision has been taken not to use hotels any more. The belief seems to be that this will achieve social cohesion, and see off completely the threat posed by the far right.
Won’t it ? That’s certainly true of the last decade, and is one if the reasons the last government was kicked out. Labour promised to do better; let’s see if they can live up to that. I’m not holding my breath, but I neither will I condemn them before they’ve had a reasonable chance.
No, I’m confident it won’t. They never do and this goes back well beyond the last decade.
You will get Quangos and NGOs set up to deal with this and the only people who will benefit will be the people in the well,paid jobs in those Quangos and NGOs.
Won’t it ? That’s certainly true of the last decade, and is one if the reasons the last government was kicked out. Labour promised to do better; let’s see if they can live up to that. I’m not holding my breath, but I neither will I condemn them before they’ve had a reasonable chance.
No, I’m confident it won’t. They never do and this goes back well beyond the last decade.
You will get Quangos and NGOs set up to deal with this and the only people who will benefit will be the people in the well,paid jobs in those Quangos and NGOs.
I hope I’m wrong. History says I won’t be.
Im afraid so, but look on the bright side Keit's mates will get well paid jobs and Reeves will give them a big pay increase.
Scrapping winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners could save a third less than the Chancellor has claimed, a former pensions minister has warned.
That would be a good thing. Less money to richer pensioners, and more of the people eligible to pension credit claiming it would be ideal for wealth redistribution and tackling fuel poverty.
Islam is a load of bollocks, as is Christianity and any other organised religion.
And you can say that as protected free speech because there's no law against attacking beliefs and won't be.
You don't need to be a racist bigot to do so. You can debate a religion without attacking its adherents.
Let’s hope you’re right, eh?
Given that you’re often completely and risibly wrong, I’m not very consoled
Let’s see what they come up with. If it’s about attacks on those who follow Islam, as opposed to the legitimate right to criticise any religion, then perhaps it won’t be damaging at all. If it’s a de facto blasphemy law, then bollocks to it.
I have my doubts about it, too., but you can’t really condemn a law that’s yet to be drafted.
Starmer is an instinctive authoritarian with Woke tendencies. My fear is that they will err on the side of censorship
As @FrancisUrquhart points out, we already have plentiful laws about hate crimes, hate speech, and protected characteristics (too many, to my mind, but that’s where we are)
Just enforce those. Don’t make even more
I did post this analysis a few days ago about how things will go
"1. That Labour succeed in crushing the 'far right' and imposing its essentially 'woke' view of the world through a form of authoritarianism that enough people submit to such that it comprises a workable form of government, something similar to the 'Canada' model.
2. That Labour implode through its instinct to 'support the downtrodden', its sympathy with illegal asylum seekers/violent gangs resulting in popular discontent and loss of legitimacy, and thus leading to a popular and unstoppable 'far right' insurgency, something like the Trump model."
Introducing a new 'islamophobia' law , if that is what they are planning to do, is consistent with both scenarios, both of which they need to avoid doing.
It has nothing to do with 'supporting the downtrodden' - those groups are Labour's client voters and always have been. It's transactional.
Well by the sounds of things, the laws on Islamophobia will be toughened, and also the cheap housing in these deprived areas will be used to house illegal asylum seekers, as the decision has been taken not to use hotels any more. The belief seems to be that this will achieve social cohesion, and see off completely the threat posed by the far right.
It won't in the slightest, what it will do is play well to Labour's activist base.
RNC Chair Lara Trump says Kamala Harris had no qualifications to be VP but was chosen because she’s a woman, and she would never want to accept any position herself unless she got it strictly on merit. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1821518983863882169
Says a person nominated because of who her Father in law and husband are
So is it just Islam which gets its own special 'phobia' law or are we Christians covered too? Or is our supposedly Christian heritage not now deemed worthy of protection from this Starmer government?
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
Is pogroms against Christians a problem that needs fixing? This week has seen attacks on mosques and there's been anti-semitic hatred and attacks on synagogues.
It goes without saying that you shouldn't introduce laws that just refer to one religion, or a certain number of religions. Laws should apply to all of them.
Islam is a load of bollocks, as is Christianity and any other organised religion.
And you can say that as protected free speech because there's no law against attacking beliefs and won't be.
You don't need to be a racist bigot to do so. You can debate a religion without attacking its adherents.
Let’s hope you’re right, eh?
Given that you’re often completely and risibly wrong, I’m not very consoled
Let’s see what they come up with. If it’s about attacks on those who follow Islam, as opposed to the legitimate right to criticise any religion, then perhaps it won’t be damaging at all. If it’s a de facto blasphemy law, then bollocks to it.
I have my doubts about it, too., but you can’t really condemn a law that’s yet to be drafted.
Starmer is an instinctive authoritarian with Woke tendencies. My fear is that they will err on the side of censorship
As @FrancisUrquhart points out, we already have plentiful laws about hate crimes, hate speech, and protected characteristics (too many, to my mind, but that’s where we are)
Just enforce those. Don’t make even more
That's exactly what he'll do, because it's the sort of superficial gesture politics that today's politicians now specialise in.
All of this was clear before the election, as was Starmer's fundamental lack of new thought or innovation.
Russian intelligence knew about the preparations for operation in Kursk region but Russian General Staff ignored those reports and hid information from Putin. The Kremlin is now very unhappy with Gerasimov - Bloomberg, citing a source close to Kremlin. https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1821621514929578307
The Air China flight goes over Russia, which makes it about three hours shorter (and three hours of fuel and labour cheaper to operate) than the BA flight.
Islam is a load of bollocks, as is Christianity and any other organised religion.
And you can say that as protected free speech because there's no law against attacking beliefs and won't be.
You don't need to be a racist bigot to do so. You can debate a religion without attacking its adherents.
Let’s hope you’re right, eh?
Given that you’re often completely and risibly wrong, I’m not very consoled
Let’s see what they come up with. If it’s about attacks on those who follow Islam, as opposed to the legitimate right to criticise any religion, then perhaps it won’t be damaging at all. If it’s a de facto blasphemy law, then bollocks to it.
I have my doubts about it, too., but you can’t really condemn a law that’s yet to be drafted.
Starmer is an instinctive authoritarian with Woke tendencies. My fear is that they will err on the side of censorship
As @FrancisUrquhart points out, we already have plentiful laws about hate crimes, hate speech, and protected characteristics (too many, to my mind, but that’s where we are)
Just enforce those. Don’t make even more
I did post this analysis a few days ago about how things will go
2. That Labour implode through its instinct to 'support the downtrodden', its sympathy with illegal asylum seekers/violent gangs resulting in popular discontent and loss of legitimacy, and thus leading to a popular and unstoppable 'far right' insurgency, something like the Trump model."
Well that was spectacularly wrong.
You should have predicted massive peaceful anti-fascist demonstrations protecting our cities.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I'd merge the UK with France at the drop of a hat.
What do you think the referendum result would be in the two countries if a merger was proposed?
Probably a higher No vote in France than in the UK.
I'd say 70-75% against in the UK, and 85-90%+ against in France.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
You seem to have failed to notice that the two highest years of mass immigration were under the last Tory government.
The Air China flight goes over Russia, which makes it about three hours shorter (and three hours of fuel and labour cheaper to operate) than the BA flight.
What's the calculation? That the Russians wouldn't dare shoot down a Chinese flight?
RNC Chair Lara Trump says Kamala Harris had no qualifications to be VP but was chosen because she’s a woman, and she would never want to accept any position herself unless she got it strictly on merit. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1821518983863882169
Says a person nominated because of who her Father in law and husband are
Three weeks ago I was utterly depressed at the thought that nothing now could stop Trump winning in November.
Three weeks is definitely a very long time in politics.
I think Trump thinks the same tonight.
Another dire day of GOP campaigning. Vance speaks to a parking lot with three people and Trump gives a press conference where he just looks old and, frankly, weird and gives a load of batshit answers that mainly are about him and how big his crowds are and how Walz is a communist.
And a poll showing Harris +6.
Way to go but at the moment this sucker is going down.
Ludicrously OTT: there are 3 months to go. Anything could happen.
All this is simply driven by (a) euphoria that Biden is no longer Democratic candidate, and, (b) a burning desire to do to Trump what was done to Biden, because revenge and guilt.
Trump will be the candidate. And all this old stuff will totally fail to stick.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
You seem to have failed to notice that the two highest years of mass immigration were under the last Tory government.
You seem to have failed to notice that the Tories are no longer in government.
The Air China flight goes over Russia, which makes it about three hours shorter (and three hours of fuel and labour cheaper to operate) than the BA flight.
What's the calculation? That the Russians wouldn't dare shoot down a Chinese flight?
More like if the British plane was forced to land in Russia, either because of a mechanical failure, medical incident, or a couple of beligerant MiG 29s, the Russians would have a couple of hundred British hostages and a valuable physical asset which is likely to be uninsured.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
I don't think that's true, to be honest. The level of immigration is an obsession on the right of politics, but its inverse on the left isn't an obsessive desire for high numbers but rather something closer to indifference. Speaking personally, as a fully signed up member of the tofu eating wokerati, I would prefer net migration to be lower, because I recognize the pressure it is putting on housing and public services. But I also recognize there are trade offs involved, and I don't want arbitrary rules to bring the numbers down if that unduly harms the economy or puts our universities out of business or interferes with family life.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
You seem to have failed to notice that the two highest years of mass immigration were under the last Tory government.
You seem to have failed to notice that the Tories are no longer in government.
And you also seem to have failed to notice a Home office announcement that they are cracking down on IT and Engineering visas due to abuses..
Not that it really matters but it turns out that you can get really cheap labour if the visa allows you to pay half the market rate and the visa holder can’t leave their original employer
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
You seem to have failed to notice that the two highest years of mass immigration were under the last Tory government.
You seem to have failed to notice that the Tories are no longer in government.
It is nailed on that the net immigration figures will be much lower this year and the next than the last 2 years of Tory failure.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
I don't think that's true, to be honest. The level of immigration is an obsession on the right of politics, but its inverse on the left isn't an obsessive desire for high numbers but rather something closer to indifference. Speaking personally, as a fully signed up member of the tofu eating wokerati, I would prefer net migration to be lower, because I recognize the pressure it is putting on housing and public services. But I also recognize there are trade offs involved, and I don't want arbitrary rules to bring the numbers down if that unduly harms the economy or puts our universities out of business or interferes with family life.
I note that the headline in today´s Times highlights a sharp fall in immigration. This is as predicted by many here and is yet another "triumph" for Leondamus...
and yet another reason why Sunak´s decision to go early, while all too welcome, really does look extremely strange in hindsight.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
There's no reason why it can't be small shops with housing above, or perhaps owner-occupied shops. What's holding it back isn't that nobody can be arsed, it's artificially high prices and rents.
I thought the same. I wonder if the shooting has knacked him. Wouldn’t be at all surprising
Please God let him withdraw and get a good sane firm Republican candidate
No, Trump needs to be defeated (humiliated) as Trump. Just like Labour needed 2019 to shake off Corbyn. Then the GOP can start being less weird.
That's not going to happen. And even if it did the GOP wouldn't become "less weird".
Politics has changed. What you're pining for is the safe space of a liberal consensus of the 1990s, in a world that has fundamentally changed.
So, two testable predictions on record there:
- Trump will win - (Even if Trump doesn’t win), the GOP will remain controlled by MAGA
Labour shook off Corbynism, so it’s possible to become less weird. But it will take an effort of will.
But you seem to be seeing anything other than a MAGA-controlled US as a (spitting contemptuously) “liberal consensus”. Which I think is somewhat overplaying things.
RNC Chair Lara Trump says Kamala Harris had no qualifications to be VP but was chosen because she’s a woman, and she would never want to accept any position herself unless she got it strictly on merit. https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1821518983863882169
Says a person nominated because of who her Father in law and husband are
It just shows the lack of attack lines they have on Harris.
It all feels like the wheels are coming off the Republican campaign.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
There needs to be severely escalating business rates charged on empty retail space.
The basic underlying issue is that landlords won’t reduce rents in line with market expectations, because that means having to mark down the value of the asset on their books. They would rather the units stay empty, often for years, than be revalued.
That’s the stick. The carrot can be that turning retail space into housing doesn’t require planning permission.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
I don't think that's true, to be honest. The level of immigration is an obsession on the right of politics, but its inverse on the left isn't an obsessive desire for high numbers but rather something closer to indifference. Speaking personally, as a fully signed up member of the tofu eating wokerati, I would prefer net migration to be lower, because I recognize the pressure it is putting on housing and public services. But I also recognize there are trade offs involved, and I don't want arbitrary rules to bring the numbers down if that unduly harms the economy or puts our universities out of business or interferes with family life.
I think most of the front bench would be delighted if net migration came down, so long as they were still able to keep public services running.
As you say, what they’re not is obsessively focused on the issue as a core tenet of ideology.
I thought the same. I wonder if the shooting has knacked him. Wouldn’t be at all surprising
Please God let him withdraw and get a good sane firm Republican candidate
No, Trump needs to be defeated (humiliated) as Trump. Just like Labour needed 2019 to shake off Corbyn. Then the GOP can start being less weird.
That's not going to happen. And even if it did the GOP wouldn't become "less weird".
Politics has changed. What you're pining for is the safe space of a liberal consensus of the 1990s, in a world that has fundamentally changed.
So, two testable predictions on record there:
- Trump will win - (Even if Trump doesn’t win), the GOP will remain controlled by MAGA
Labour shook off Corbynism, so it’s possible to become less weird. But it will take an effort of will.
But you seem to be seeing anything other than a MAGA-controlled US as a (spitting contemptuously) “liberal consensus”. Which I think is somewhat overplaying things.
There will come a time when the party faithful will be tired of opposition and want to win.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
1 of twin A’s specialist subjects - no you don’t get a discount on your business rates even after the growers have been kicked out and the place is now a complete wreck
Four men have been jailed for what police described as a sophisticated commercial-scale production of cannabis in disused railway tunnels.
The “pub” on Lewisham way opposite our street burned down a few years ago and I remember driving out that morning and seeing a makeshift rope made of tied together bed sheets hanging out of an upstairs window, like something straight out of Hollywood.
The entire top floor had been a cannabis factory and had an electric malfunction.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
There needs to be severely escalating business rates charged on empty retail space.
The basic underlying issue is that landlords won’t reduce rents in line with market expectations, because that means having to mark down the value of the asset on their books. They would rather the units stay empty, often for years, than be revalued.
That’s the stick. The carrot can be that turning retail space into housing doesn’t require planning permission.
We have a lot of retail space in Dundee city centre that has been empty for more than 20 years. The problem with converting it is that planning permission for housing requires them to provide parking etc for residents which simply cannot be done in city centres at an economic cost. So we sit surrounded by dilapidating buildings making the High Street and associated streets ever less desirable. Its a negative spiral we really need to break.
I thought the same. I wonder if the shooting has knacked him. Wouldn’t be at all surprising
Please God let him withdraw and get a good sane firm Republican candidate
No, Trump needs to be defeated (humiliated) as Trump. Just like Labour needed 2019 to shake off Corbyn. Then the GOP can start being less weird.
That's not going to happen. And even if it did the GOP wouldn't become "less weird".
Politics has changed. What you're pining for is the safe space of a liberal consensus of the 1990s, in a world that has fundamentally changed.
So, two testable predictions on record there:
- Trump will win - (Even if Trump doesn’t win), the GOP will remain controlled by MAGA
Labour shook off Corbynism, so it’s possible to become less weird. But it will take an effort of will.
But you seem to be seeing anything other than a MAGA-controlled US as a (spitting contemptuously) “liberal consensus”. Which I think is somewhat overplaying things.
No, I just think this site is absurdly overly emotionally invested in stopping Trump and playing him down, which is unforgivable on a betting site.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
IT happened in our town in a disused restaurant.
One row of five shops was also demolished and turned into a car park.
We've had this as well not in the High Street but in the adjoining streets. At least the clearance of old buildings in poor repair not suitable for modern purposes creates a site where something new can be built. But very few people, other than supermarket convenience stores, seem interested.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
There needs to be severely escalating business rates charged on empty retail space.
The basic underlying issue is that landlords won’t reduce rents in line with market expectations, because that means having to mark down the value of the asset on their books. They would rather the units stay empty, often for years, than be revalued.
That’s the stick. The carrot can be that turning retail space into housing doesn’t require planning permission.
Both Blacks and Cotswold Outdoor are closing in Leicester this summer, leaving us just with a pretty small and poor Trespass for hiking and outdoor gear.
At the closing down sale in Blacks one of the staff told me their rent had gone up 40%. The city centre Marks and Spencer is closing soon too. The blight on the High St isn't just left behind towns, it is spreading to big cities.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
I don't think that's true, to be honest. The level of immigration is an obsession on the right of politics, but its inverse on the left isn't an obsessive desire for high numbers but rather something closer to indifference. Speaking personally, as a fully signed up member of the tofu eating wokerati, I would prefer net migration to be lower, because I recognize the pressure it is putting on housing and public services. But I also recognize there are trade offs involved, and I don't want arbitrary rules to bring the numbers down if that unduly harms the economy or puts our universities out of business or interferes with family life.
I think it's true and it's equally an obsession with those on the left (never forget "let's rub the right's noses in diversity" and all the "global majority" stuff). And then you have Yvette Cooper - our current Home Secretary - posing with a "#refugeeswelcome T-shirt online less that 18 months ago. Which won't have gone unnoticed by aspiring migrants.
The default is high migration because that's what happens in the absence of strongly applied controls.
Since there's no desire or appetite for that on the Left, that's what will happen.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
I don't think that's true, to be honest. The level of immigration is an obsession on the right of politics, but its inverse on the left isn't an obsessive desire for high numbers but rather something closer to indifference. Speaking personally, as a fully signed up member of the tofu eating wokerati, I would prefer net migration to be lower, because I recognize the pressure it is putting on housing and public services. But I also recognize there are trade offs involved, and I don't want arbitrary rules to bring the numbers down if that unduly harms the economy or puts our universities out of business or interferes with family life.
I note that the headline in today´s Times highlights a sharp fall in immigration. This is as predicted by many here and is yet another "triumph" for Leondamus...
and yet another reason why Sunak´s decision to go early, while all too welcome, really does look extremely strange in hindsight.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
There needs to be severely escalating business rates charged on empty retail space.
The basic underlying issue is that landlords won’t reduce rents in line with market expectations, because that means having to mark down the value of the asset on their books. They would rather the units stay empty, often for years, than be revalued.
That’s the stick. The carrot can be that turning retail space into housing doesn’t require planning permission.
We have a lot of retail space in Dundee city centre that has been empty for more than 20 years. The problem with converting it is that planning permission for housing requires them to provide parking etc for residents which simply cannot be done in city centres at an economic cost. So we sit surrounded by dilapidating buildings making the High Street and associated streets ever less desirable. Its a negative spiral we really need to break.
Well you’ve got at least four options there. 1. Knock down one of the units and use for parking. 2. Lease parking spaces in a council-owned car park somewhere close by. 3. Allow residents to buy season tickets for on-street parking in the centre zone. 4. Just sell the units with no parking, and let the residents find somewhere to park on the street.
As always, the issue is planning, and the inability of everyone to think outside the box in persuance of the goal of using the space for housing.
We remain tantalisingly close to statistical parity with France in the medal table. They have one more silver and one more gold. So it would only take two events to get us there.
Britain and France are to all intents and purposes siblings that should have merged back in the 1950s when it was on the table. The same glorious dissonance that is what makes the Anglo-Scottish relationship so harmonious and productive.
Most people if given a choice would merge with North korea before merging with france
Done polling have you? Until then, speak for yourself.
Large tracts of it used to be ours.
Not done polling no, just experience that no one much has a good word to say about the french. Most of my team are scottish for example, a group that in theory should like the french from recent history. Most of them don't like the french either and if asked if they wanted to merge would go hell no!
You of course making the first claim if anyone showing a popular move to merge with the french not me
Have you been to France? I’ve just spent about 9 of the last 12 weeks there, all over the country
They are remarkably polite, friendly, honest, kind, certainly outside Paris. In fact it’s getting hard to find the traditional rude shrugging Frenchman
It really helps if you can say just two or three words of French. That makes them smile, then they happily accept that English is the lingua franca
And their country is much more beautiful than ours
I deny nothing you have said, however nothing you said indicates they want to merge with england so I don't see how it is remotely relevant
Oh but Pagan I am deadly serious about this.
Give it time and the peuples of les deux états will voir la lumière.
No they really won't else we would have done it centuries back when we were almost one country, since then we have got more distant from each other not closer
Both countries have very similar problems. Tragically, we used to be able to say that the UK is more racially harmonious. Not any more
I don't think that's true at all, last night tens of thousands across the country came out to march against Nazis and fascist EDL types. While it doesn't mean all is good again, it does show that that the majority of the UK is decent and accepting of people from different ethnicities. The "breaking point" is much further away than people might try and sensationalise.
I hope you’re right. But I’m deeply pessimistic. Why?
Because I don’t think the Labour government will learn anything from this, other than that they need to censor and demonise dissenting right wing opinion even more
They won’t do anything about the boats, immigration will continue at insane levels, they will silence anyone who complains, they will make zero effort at Danish style integration. The sectarianisation of the UK will therefore continue and likely intensify
Then that's Labour losing in 2029, however, I don't think the high net migration will continue under Labour. They're already making noises about raising the £39k visa threshold and pushing through a regional and sector based salary minimums which would fundamentally change the way sponsor visas are issued. That along with the collapse of the student visa factory "universities" sector will push net migration down to ~150k within a couple of years and with the higher thresholds the current lot of foreign students graduating will have to go back home meaning we may actually have 2-3 years of net emigration as student arrivals unwind.
I think that's wishful thinking.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
I don't think that's true, to be honest. The level of immigration is an obsession on the right of politics, but its inverse on the left isn't an obsessive desire for high numbers but rather something closer to indifference. Speaking personally, as a fully signed up member of the tofu eating wokerati, I would prefer net migration to be lower, because I recognize the pressure it is putting on housing and public services. But I also recognize there are trade offs involved, and I don't want arbitrary rules to bring the numbers down if that unduly harms the economy or puts our universities out of business or interferes with family life.
I note that the headline in today´s Times highlights a sharp fall in immigration. This is as predicted by many here and is yet another "triumph" for Leondamus...
and yet another reason why Sunak´s decision to go early, while all too welcome, really does look extremely strange in hindsight.
It's baffling.
I can only imagine he'd simply had enough.
Or that Graham Brady’s postbox was very nearly full.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
There needs to be severely escalating business rates charged on empty retail space.
The basic underlying issue is that landlords won’t reduce rents in line with market expectations, because that means having to mark down the value of the asset on their books. They would rather the units stay empty, often for years, than be revalued.
That’s the stick. The carrot can be that turning retail space into housing doesn’t require planning permission.
Both Blacks and Cotswold Outdoor are closing in Leicester this summer, leaving us just with a pretty small and poor Trespass for hiking and outdoor gear.
At the closing down sale in Blacks one of the staff told me their rent had gone up 40%. The city centre Marks and Spencer is closing soon too. The blight on the High St isn't just left behind towns, it is spreading to big cities.
The rent hikes are because the increasing interest rates mean the rent *has* to rise to keep the book value of the asset constant. It’s all financial manipulation, and it’s killing the sector.
If you have one person on your street, within a few doors, who is flying a blue thin line flag and has Trump placards on their lawn, while the majority of Harris voters just have regular US flags, or none at all, then it would be easy to think that a majority of your neighbours are Trump voters.
I think this polling result is mostly a result of Trump voters being more noticeable.
Comments
Sometimes things that seem near-eternal really do end
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/8/24216202/garm-x-twitter-musk-advertising
That's one thing that never ends.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/08/winter-fuel-payment-cut-save-less-than-reeves-needs-experts/
Glossolalia?
(Sorry, couldn't resist. Years ago, I decided that, not being paid to do so, I would skip listening to the man, so I didn't watch today's news conferencer.)
That seemed to go pretty much as expected.
There is already the Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 anyway
The modern world respects freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience, not putting your heritage above the rights of the rest of us.
I'm still trying to work out the strategic front objectives for Ukraine. They have two of their most capable brigades involved, Russian sources claim further units are in a position to join the offensive so you'd like to think this is not a political project and has proper strategic aims.
Whilst the Ukrainians started off in an E-NE direction they have wheeled south over the last 24 hours but its unclear if this is just to maintain the flank or they are literally attacking down that direction to trap Russian formations on the Ukraine side of the border.
What is striking is that the understanding that the Russians have left large areas around the borders largely without formation forces look to be confirmed. They seem to have no reserve formation forces in the area to provide a blocking or counter offensive force, it appears to be a mix of National Guard, FSB, border guards, and smaller military units ie all motorised infantry. Where are the large battalion/brigade reserves in the area? If they are there, they appear to be asleep. There is also limited signs of tactical aviation being heavily used, a key area of Russian advantage, and the first thing you'd be expect to be thrown into an attempt to slow or halt the advance.
The Russians seem determined to not redeploy frontline forces from other fronts but whether that holds or not we should know with 48 hours.
Ukrainian OPSEC has been superb, which is also a sign things are going well.
There is no need for Islamaphobia laws to appease the Labour core vote
and criminalise those writing books or articles criticising Islam. Theoretically Salman Rushdie even could be arrested under this proposed new law
Quite a good one, too.
However, until something concrete materialises, I'm not interested in getting involved in a theoretical debate. The tele article is spectacularly thin on sources. Doesn't look to me like they have anyone remotely close to the Labour Party. Very poor.
Should have read:
"Doesn't look to me like they have anyone remotely close to the government / insight into the thinking inside government, right now. Very poor."
Some interesting agendas / factions becoming apparent.
As always, read between the lines.
https://x.com/emilyhewertson/status/1821613016766713959
Emily Hewertson 🇬🇧
@emilyhewertson
I was falsely identified as the person who threw a milkshake over Nigel Farage by a load of left-wing accounts, some of which were high profile with thousands of followers.
As a result of their false accusations I received a torrent of horrific abuse.
Do I think those who spread these malicious rumours should have been arrested? Absolutely not.
I have always strongly condemned speculating on identities until names are released by police. It is not helpful. But equally, this is a very slippery slope.
Nothing will be done to tackle this.
https://x.com/annasophiegross/status/1821604285647614272?s=61
American, who was put in wheelchair after shock defeat, says he did not want to cause panic or give rivals an edge by admitting he was ill"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/08/08/noah-lyles-covid-collapse-wheelchair-olympics-200m-bronze/
That’s certainly true of the last decade, and is one if the reasons the last government was kicked out. Labour promised to do better; let’s see if they can live up to that.
I’m not holding my breath, but I neither will I condemn them before they’ve had a reasonable chance.
Harris campaign with a lengthy response to Trump’s “very good, very normal press conference.”
https://x.com/joeygarrison/status/1821637172299989284
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/videos/cm2nz9vje9po
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/1821618303694975171
“That is a frustrated…frightened Donald Trump. He's looking at the poll numbers. It's a big tell when he does the accordion thing and tells you how great he's doing in the polls — that is a big tell for him...Let him keep talking, and he'll dig a bigger hole for himself. People will remember, 'I don't really want to go back to what was going on in this country in 2017 to January 2021”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1821729785384734866
The Mooch is actually one of the better political journalists working in the US these days.
"1. That Labour succeed in crushing the 'far right' and imposing its essentially 'woke' view of the world through a form of authoritarianism that enough people submit to such that it comprises a workable form of government, something similar to the 'Canada' model.
2. That Labour implode through its instinct to 'support the downtrodden', its sympathy with illegal asylum seekers/violent gangs resulting in popular discontent and loss of legitimacy, and thus leading to a popular and unstoppable 'far right' insurgency, something like the Trump model."
Introducing a new 'islamophobia' law , if that is what they are planning to do, is consistent with both scenarios, both of which they need to avoid doing.
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1821621514929578307
The body language in that picture…
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1821518983863882169
“I'm a woman. Do me a favor: Don't ever give me a position based on the fact that I'm a woman. Either I earned it, or I didn't—and that's it. That's all I need.”
I suppose she means she had to marry Eric Trump to get where she is, so she has paid her dues, as Anastacia put it.
You will get Quangos and NGOs set up to deal with this and the only people who will benefit will be the people in the well,paid jobs in those Quangos and NGOs.
I hope I’m wrong. History says I won’t be.
Thiam 1/2
KJT 19/10
All of this was clear before the election, as was Starmer's fundamental lack of new thought or innovation.
Blasphemy laws: the intellectual excrement of the Middle Ages.
https://x.com/eat_your_lasers/status/1821695116891087182?t=JDrMHTjKn2WNBpb4guAbiQ&s=19
You should have predicted massive peaceful anti-fascist demonstrations protecting our cities.
High immigration is fundamental to their world view, because they view the size of the number as a sign of their virility on progressiveness, and it runs through their blood.
I'd say 70-75% against in the UK, and 85-90%+ against in France.
Politics has changed. What you're pining for is the safe space of a liberal consensus of the 1990s, in a world that has fundamentally changed.
All this is simply driven by (a) euphoria that Biden is no longer Democratic candidate, and, (b) a burning desire to do to Trump what was done to Biden, because revenge and guilt.
Trump will be the candidate. And all this old stuff will totally fail to stick.
The Tory party won't recover until it wakes up, smells the coffee and accepts reality.
Not that it really matters but it turns out that you can get really cheap labour if the visa allows you to pay half the market rate and the visa holder can’t leave their original employer
and yet another reason why Sunak´s decision to go early, while all too welcome, really does look extremely strange in hindsight.
It's a start, I suppose, but I can't help thinking converting it into housing would be better.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-20579592
Four men have been jailed for what police described as a sophisticated commercial-scale production of cannabis in disused railway tunnels.
- Trump will win
- (Even if Trump doesn’t win), the GOP will remain controlled by MAGA
Labour shook off Corbynism, so it’s possible to become less weird. But it will take an effort of will.
But you seem to be seeing anything other than a MAGA-controlled US as a (spitting contemptuously) “liberal consensus”. Which I think is somewhat overplaying things.
It all feels like the wheels are coming off the Republican campaign.
The basic underlying issue is that landlords won’t reduce rents in line with market expectations, because that means having to mark down the value of the asset on their books. They would rather the units stay empty, often for years, than be revalued.
That’s the stick. The carrot can be that turning retail space into housing doesn’t require planning permission.
One row of five shops was also demolished and turned into a car park.
As you say, what they’re not is obsessively focused on the issue as a core tenet of ideology.
The entire top floor had been a cannabis factory and had an electric malfunction.
NEW THREAD
At the closing down sale in Blacks one of the staff told me their rent had gone up 40%. The city centre Marks and Spencer is closing soon too. The blight on the High St isn't just left behind towns, it is spreading to big cities.
The default is high migration because that's what happens in the absence of strongly applied controls.
Since there's no desire or appetite for that on the Left, that's what will happen.
I can only imagine he'd simply had enough.
1. Knock down one of the units and use for parking.
2. Lease parking spaces in a council-owned car park somewhere close by.
3. Allow residents to buy season tickets for on-street parking in the centre zone.
4. Just sell the units with no parking, and let the residents find somewhere to park on the street.
As always, the issue is planning, and the inability of everyone to think outside the box in persuance of the goal of using the space for housing.
I think this polling result is mostly a result of Trump voters being more noticeable.