Oooh.More Americans trust Kamala Harris to handle the US economy than Donald Trump, according to a new poll that marks a sharp change in voter sentiment following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the White House race https://t.co/GvkgKjkt02
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
The group of "demonstrators" that turned up at The Moon Under Water in Manchester should have been moved on by the police. Completely unacceptable to go looking for trouble with people just wanting to have a pint before a football match.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Unsurprisingly the state saw off this challenge to its authority. However hubris has set in. There is one case where a judge has remanded someone for just being present at the scene of some disorder, another where someone got a 2 year sentence for 'gesticulating' at the police. There is various other stuff, like one where a guy in the midlands went on an ill advised monologue about free speech on Twitter, in doing so retweeting another dodgy tweet, and ended up with 38 months in jail, he has 3 kids and grew up in care etc, they are losing their council house.
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
That's genuinely despicable about the Twitter man; I didn't know that. I don't know how anybody with a moral compass could support that.
Is this the man?
'He tweeted on Wednesday: "Mass deportations now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it". '
If so, Darkage' s description of the case doesn't seem accurate
That is a quote tweet (of a tweet by the councillor's wife), and it was part of a sequence of tweets where he actually tagged the police, because he was trying to prove a political point
In the circs, even quote-tweeting was foolish, but the intent was not to foment trouble, it was to query police tactics
For that he has got more than three years in jail, and he's lost his home
A few weeks cooling down in chokey would have been sufficient. Three years??
There's a picture of the actual tweet in the news story I linked to above, I don't how to do pictures here, so maybe someone can post it so people can judge for themselves.
As for tagging the police the only sign of that I can see is that in the list of hashtags under the tweet it has #f***northamptonshirepolice
If you are right then please provide a source, please don't take this the wrong way, but experience has taught me that you are often full of shit
Likewise, I find you consitently full of shit, rancid with hypocrisy, also myopic, ludicrous, and idiotic, and dumb as a fucking pit-pony AS WELL, but honestly it's nothing personal
Here's the evidence
"TYLER KAY WENT TO PRISON AND LOST HIS HOUSE FOR COPYING A POST ON X
Tyler was sentenced to 38 months in prison for copying a post made on X by Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councilor.
The post read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*king hotels full of the ba*ards for all I care…If that makes me a racist, so be it.”
Lucy had been arrested for the post, and Tyler was trying to prove that he wouldn’t be arrested.
He made this clear in a reply to his post, stating: “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
Despite his barrister explaining he was immature, had grown up in care, and would lose his council house as a result of a prison sentence, the judge said he “clearly intended to incite serious violence.”
He then sent Tyler, a father of 3, to prison for 3 years and 2 months.
i believe the arrest and conviction was correct. Even copying an incendiary tweet to make a point is extremely foolish during a time of tiots. But 3 years 2 months in jail?
The authoritarian state has gone mad
Given that he was only jailed on Friday how come he has already lost his home?
I mean it's incredibly likely to occur that he will lose his home (mainly because he won't be in it for 18 months and won't be paying the bills) but he hasn't lost it yet.
Edit - I'm also not sure about his “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
As the people I expect he is talking about (Farage and co) were a bit cleverer in what they actually wrote..
I agree on your second point. The whole tweet sequence was idiotic and, in this troubled time, the coppers were right to arrest him, and the court to convict him. But a few weeks in jail is surely sufficient. Not three years two months, which is enough to ruin his life and deprive him of a home. And he has three young kids
Here are the sentencing remarks for Tyler Kay. He also gave public advice about how to take part with his view of how to avoid arrest (false number plates, gloves etc).
It's 19 months in prison and 19 months on license. He only got a 20% not 33% reduction on the basic 4 year sentence due to guilty plea since it was not at the first opportunity.
I'm not sure what that sentence would be relating to an individual or several people rather than a riot situation.
I was correct, his housing is Council Housing, so of course he will lose it if just him - they won't keep it empty for a crim for 19 months. Not sure about whether he lived with his family, in which case it may be different depending who holds the tenancy.
The group of "demonstrators" that turned up at The Moon Under Water in Manchester should have been moved on by the police. Completely unacceptable to go looking for trouble with people just wanting to have a pint before a football match.
It's interesting that one fear that was expressed in the past week that there'd be some pro rioting chants at the football this weekend, hasn't materialised as far as I am aware.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The gold in the climbing came very much out of the blue and was most welcome.
The Americans like to rank the Olympics by total medals so they win. The Australians like to do it per capita so they win. Everyone else counts the number of golds, which is no good either.
Using my much fairer system — three points for gold, two for silver, one for bronze, per capita but requiring a minimum of 50 medals and penalising the host country by 12 per cent for home advantage — it is clear that Britain won the Olympics. Again.
Perhaps an interesting thing is what happens if panic sets in at the Trump bunker.
He expected to win in 2016 and in 2020 - how does he behave if he thinks he is going to lose.
There is every reason to think panic might set in.
Why would you cling to Trump if he starts to look like a loser? It's not as if anyone actually likes the guy.
Those around most leading politicians will usually be a mix of (to use extreme terms) ideologues and grifters.
But there's no political ideology with Trump, it all about what benefits Trump - which in turn suggests that the people around him are in it only for themselves.
Chinese wind turbine manufacturers produced 2/3 of global new wind capacity in 2023. 4 of the top 5 manufacturers are Chinese: Goldwind, Envision, Windey, Mingyang.
- If rents are low and/or growing slowly, there's no need for rent controls. Only if rents are high and/or shooting up does anyone have any reason to want them - If rents are high/spiralling, it means there's not enough supply to go around, or there's a price-fixing cartel in operation (and the cartel has control of a supermajority of the housing stock) - If there's not enough supply to go around, it's going to be rationed. Pretty much by definition. You have three options, other than increasing supply (the actual solution): - - Ration by price (rents go high/spiralling) - - Ration by waiting list (you have to wait your turn, which may be lengthy if the supply deficit is significant (and the worse the prices under the first option, the longer is the wait) - - Ration by perceived need (someone with the authority to make it stick steps in and says who is more worthy of getting a house/who needs it least)
Price controls reduce the monies available to increase or improve supply, so you end up in a vicious circle. You may say "But landlords won't improve properties" - but properties do get improved by landlords and, at least, usually upkept safely. Rent controls hit there, so not only do you not increase stock, your existing stock deteriorates. (A Swedish economist - not usually famous for being hostile to left-wing solutions - famously remarked that rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy housing, except for aerial bombing)
If you're in when rent controls come in, you're usually far better off than someone entering the market to rent somewhere afterwards. Landlords will be VERY picky, will put the rent up as much as possible, and the amount of availability will be decreased (so you end up with a waiting list scenario, anyway).
It's as effective a way of combating rental shortages as forcing on far-too-small clothes are as a way of combating ever-increasing weight (whilst still overeating and underexercising). Not only doesn't it achieve anything, you end up much more uncomfortable, and with your clothes splitting in an embarrassing fashion
Perhaps an interesting thing is what happens if panic sets in at the Trump bunker.
He expected to win in 2016 and in 2020 - how does he behave if he thinks he is going to lose.
There is every reason to think panic might set in.
Why would you cling to Trump if he starts to look like a loser? It's not as if anyone actually likes the guy.
Those around most leading politicians will usually be a mix of (to use extreme terms) ideologues and grifters.
But there's no political ideology with Trump, it all about what benefits Trump - which in turn suggests that the people around him are in it only for themselves.
If/when panic sets in Trump will turn the nasty dial up to 11.
It will a stream of foam flecked rants and deranged accusations about the Dem team even more bonkers than the ones he's tried so far.
But of course they may not panic because they know they have so many state officials ready to not certify the result if Trump loses.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
That question doesn't distinguish between those who protested peacefully against the Southport murders and those who protested peacefully against the racist rioters. The high approval amongst Lab, LD and Green voters suggests a lot of approval of peaceful anti-fascist protestors.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The gold in the climbing came very much out of the blue and was most welcome.
A wide spread of sporting success is good.
If only because it will encourage more take up of sport among the general populace.
The West Indian sprinting and East African distance running always feels like an economy too narrowly focused on one particular industry.
Question: How many deaths have there been in Boeing commercial jets recently -- when they were piloted by American pilots? I don't know of any in the last few years.
There were two sudden descent failures with "max" aircraft piloted by Americans. In both cases, the pilots were able to recover. Boeing should have taken strong actions immediately after the first, and even more so, after the second. (The Ethiopian loss was at a higher altitude, which might have made it harder for any pilot to recover.)
But we shouldn't imply that the long term term safety trend in US commercial aviation is still very good. And that hasn't changed -- in spite of Boeing's failures.
Perhaps an interesting thing is what happens if panic sets in at the Trump bunker.
He expected to win in 2016 and in 2020 - how does he behave if he thinks he is going to lose.
There is every reason to think panic might set in.
Why would you cling to Trump if he starts to look like a loser? It's not as if anyone actually likes the guy.
Those around most leading politicians will usually be a mix of (to use extreme terms) ideologues and grifters.
But there's no political ideology with Trump, it all about what benefits Trump - which in turn suggests that the people around him are in it only for themselves.
If/when panic sets in Trump will turn the nasty dial up to 11.
It will a stream of foam flecked rants and deranged accusations about the Dem team even more bonkers than the ones he's tried so far.
But of course they may not panic because they know they have so many state officials ready to not certify the result if Trump loses.
So who are these state officials involved in the big conspiracy ?
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
That question doesn't distinguish between those who protested peacefully against the Southport murders and those who protested peacefully against the racist rioters. The high approval amongst Lab, LD and Green voters suggests a lot of approval of peaceful anti-fascist protestors.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
That question doesn't distinguish between those who protested peacefully against the Southport murders and those who protested peacefully against the racist rioters. The high approval amongst Lab, LD and Green voters suggests a lot of approval of peaceful anti-fascist protestors.
That seems to be wrong. YouGov were specifically asking about the post Southport protests
From the YouGov website. My capitals
“Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly TRIGGERED BY THE SOUTHPORT MURDERS. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
From this we can conclude that 93% of the public are far-right. (Sarcasm klaxon).
FPT: Years ago, after looking at the numbers, I concluded that anyone who claimed that wastes from nuclear power generation were a serious health and safety problem didn't understand the numbers, or was playing politics.
The Americans like to rank the Olympics by total medals so they win. The Australians like to do it per capita so they win. Everyone else counts the number of golds, which is no good either.
Using my much fairer system — three points for gold, two for silver, one for bronze, per capita but requiring a minimum of 50 medals and penalising the host country by 12 per cent for home advantage — it is clear that Britain won the Olympics. Again.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Unsurprisingly the state saw off this challenge to its authority. However hubris has set in. There is one case where a judge has remanded someone for just being present at the scene of some disorder, another where someone got a 2 year sentence for 'gesticulating' at the police. There is various other stuff, like one where a guy in the midlands went on an ill advised monologue about free speech on Twitter, in doing so retweeting another dodgy tweet, and ended up with 38 months in jail, he has 3 kids and grew up in care etc, they are losing their council house.
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
That's genuinely despicable about the Twitter man; I didn't know that. I don't know how anybody with a moral compass could support that.
Is this the man?
'He tweeted on Wednesday: "Mass deportations now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it". '
If so, Darkage' s description of the case doesn't seem accurate
That is a quote tweet (of a tweet by the councillor's wife), and it was part of a sequence of tweets where he actually tagged the police, because he was trying to prove a political point
In the circs, even quote-tweeting was foolish, but the intent was not to foment trouble, it was to query police tactics
For that he has got more than three years in jail, and he's lost his home
A few weeks cooling down in chokey would have been sufficient. Three years??
There's a picture of the actual tweet in the news story I linked to above, I don't how to do pictures here, so maybe someone can post it so people can judge for themselves.
As for tagging the police the only sign of that I can see is that in the list of hashtags under the tweet it has #f***northamptonshirepolice
If you are right then please provide a source, please don't take this the wrong way, but experience has taught me that you are often full of shit
Likewise, I find you consitently full of shit, rancid with hypocrisy, also myopic, ludicrous, and idiotic, and dumb as a fucking pit-pony AS WELL, but honestly it's nothing personal
Here's the evidence
"TYLER KAY WENT TO PRISON AND LOST HIS HOUSE FOR COPYING A POST ON X
Tyler was sentenced to 38 months in prison for copying a post made on X by Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councilor.
The post read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*king hotels full of the ba*ards for all I care…If that makes me a racist, so be it.”
Lucy had been arrested for the post, and Tyler was trying to prove that he wouldn’t be arrested.
He made this clear in a reply to his post, stating: “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
Despite his barrister explaining he was immature, had grown up in care, and would lose his council house as a result of a prison sentence, the judge said he “clearly intended to incite serious violence.”
He then sent Tyler, a father of 3, to prison for 3 years and 2 months.
i believe the arrest and conviction was correct. Even copying an incendiary tweet to make a point is extremely foolish during a time of tiots. But 3 years 2 months in jail?
The authoritarian state has gone mad
Given that he was only jailed on Friday how come he has already lost his home?
I mean it's incredibly likely to occur that he will lose his home (mainly because he won't be in it for 18 months and won't be paying the bills) but he hasn't lost it yet.
Edit - I'm also not sure about his “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
As the people I expect he is talking about (Farage and co) were a bit cleverer in what they actually wrote..
I agree on your second point. The whole tweet sequence was idiotic and, in this troubled time, the coppers were right to arrest him, and the court to convict him. But a few weeks in jail is surely sufficient. Not three years two months, which is enough to ruin his life and deprive him of a home. And he has three young kids
Here are the sentencing remarks for Tyler Kay. He also gave public advice about how to take part with his view of how to avoid arrest (false number plates, gloves etc).
It's 19 months in prison and 19 months on license. He only got a 20% not 33% reduction on the basic 4 year sentence due to guilty plea since it was not at the first opportunity.
I'm not sure what that sentence would be relating to an individual or several people rather than a riot situation.
I was correct, his housing is Council Housing, so of course he will lose it if just him - they won't keep it empty for a crim for 19 months. Not sure about whether he lived with his family, in which case it may be different depending who holds the tenancy.
@MattW Thanks for finding these sentencing remarks, they are useful. It seems like the idea that this was a 'free speech' thing is an implausible attempt at a defence, but certainly immaturity is evident. As a general point, I have said about these riots, it is just the way the state will deal with this type of issue to stop them, otherwise they will go on and on forever. I would agree with Leon that generally the jail sentences are too long. Amongst many other things it will radicalise people who will leave prison in a couple of years time with nothing to lose.
Correction: The long term safety trend in US commercial aviation is still very good. (And I'll be showing that I believe that by taking commerical flights in the next month or two.)
FPT: Years ago, after looking at the numbers, I concluded that anyone who claimed that wastes from nuclear power generation were a serious health and safety problem didn't understand the numbers, or was playing politics.
FPT: Years ago, after looking at the numbers, I concluded that anyone who claimed that wastes from nuclear power generation were a serious health and safety problem didn't understand the numbers, or was playing politics.
Buttigieg: "I watched @JDVance present himself as suddenly...very concerned about honesty. He's running w/Trump, [who] just gave a press conference where..he told 160 lies. That frankly is impressive in terms of being able to physically do that. It's like the Olympics of lying" https://x.com/Lis_Smith/status/1822640058500857889
Correction: The long term safety trend in US commercial aviation is still very good. (And I'll be showing that I believe that by taking commerical flights in the next month or two.)
It's outstanding: whole years go by without a single fatal incident.
General aviation (and particularly rotary wing general aviation) does not have such a good safety record.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Unsurprisingly the state saw off this challenge to its authority. However hubris has set in. There is one case where a judge has remanded someone for just being present at the scene of some disorder, another where someone got a 2 year sentence for 'gesticulating' at the police. There is various other stuff, like one where a guy in the midlands went on an ill advised monologue about free speech on Twitter, in doing so retweeting another dodgy tweet, and ended up with 38 months in jail, he has 3 kids and grew up in care etc, they are losing their council house.
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
That's genuinely despicable about the Twitter man; I didn't know that. I don't know how anybody with a moral compass could support that.
Is this the man?
'He tweeted on Wednesday: "Mass deportations now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it". '
If so, Darkage' s description of the case doesn't seem accurate
That is a quote tweet (of a tweet by the councillor's wife), and it was part of a sequence of tweets where he actually tagged the police, because he was trying to prove a political point
In the circs, even quote-tweeting was foolish, but the intent was not to foment trouble, it was to query police tactics
For that he has got more than three years in jail, and he's lost his home
A few weeks cooling down in chokey would have been sufficient. Three years??
There's a picture of the actual tweet in the news story I linked to above, I don't how to do pictures here, so maybe someone can post it so people can judge for themselves.
As for tagging the police the only sign of that I can see is that in the list of hashtags under the tweet it has #f***northamptonshirepolice
If you are right then please provide a source, please don't take this the wrong way, but experience has taught me that you are often full of shit
Likewise, I find you consitently full of shit, rancid with hypocrisy, also myopic, ludicrous, and idiotic, and dumb as a fucking pit-pony AS WELL, but honestly it's nothing personal
Here's the evidence
"TYLER KAY WENT TO PRISON AND LOST HIS HOUSE FOR COPYING A POST ON X
Tyler was sentenced to 38 months in prison for copying a post made on X by Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councilor.
The post read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*king hotels full of the ba*ards for all I care…If that makes me a racist, so be it.”
Lucy had been arrested for the post, and Tyler was trying to prove that he wouldn’t be arrested.
He made this clear in a reply to his post, stating: “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
Despite his barrister explaining he was immature, had grown up in care, and would lose his council house as a result of a prison sentence, the judge said he “clearly intended to incite serious violence.”
He then sent Tyler, a father of 3, to prison for 3 years and 2 months.
i believe the arrest and conviction was correct. Even copying an incendiary tweet to make a point is extremely foolish during a time of tiots. But 3 years 2 months in jail?
The authoritarian state has gone mad
Given that he was only jailed on Friday how come he has already lost his home?
I mean it's incredibly likely to occur that he will lose his home (mainly because he won't be in it for 18 months and won't be paying the bills) but he hasn't lost it yet.
Edit - I'm also not sure about his “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
As the people I expect he is talking about (Farage and co) were a bit cleverer in what they actually wrote..
I agree on your second point. The whole tweet sequence was idiotic and, in this troubled time, the coppers were right to arrest him, and the court to convict him. But a few weeks in jail is surely sufficient. Not three years two months, which is enough to ruin his life and deprive him of a home. And he has three young kids
Here are the sentencing remarks for Tyler Kay. He also gave public advice about how to take part with his view of how to avoid arrest (false number plates, gloves etc).
It's 19 months in prison and 19 months on license. He only got a 20% not 33% reduction on the basic 4 year sentence due to guilty plea since it was not at the first opportunity.
I'm not sure what that sentence would be relating to an individual or several people rather than a riot situation.
I was correct, his housing is Council Housing, so of course he will lose it if just him - they won't keep it empty for a crim for 19 months. Not sure about whether he lived with his family, in which case it may be different depending who holds the tenancy.
@MattW Thanks for finding these sentencing remarks, they are useful. It seems like the idea that this was a 'free speech' thing is an implausible attempt at a defence, but certainly immaturity is evident. As a general point, I have said about these riots, it is just the way the state will deal with this type of issue to stop them, otherwise they will go on and on forever. I would agree with Leon that generally the jail sentences are too long. Amongst many other things it will radicalise people who will leave prison in a couple of years time with nothing to lose.
I see the relevant law was passed in 1986. Have the sentencing guidelines been made harsher in recent years? If not, it seems strange it is only now becoming apparent that they are too harsh.
A really interesting factor is the way Harris, the incumbent V-P, has accidentally become the 'change' candidate in the US. Suddenly Trump, the oft-proclaimed insurgent, becomes the 'old guard' candidate.
Then Harris is performing much better than Biden on the economy simply because people 'know' or 'believe' she willl change Biden's policies.
If you are Trump you have reason to be a little miffed at these shiftings of the political reality. However, they are happening and he has real problems unless he can counter them.
@Muesli : On your question about nuclear power and benefits vs harms, a great resource (albeit now a few years old) is David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air"
It's available for free online, and the stuff on nuclear power starts here:
rcs1000 - Do you believe in learning curves in manufacturing?
I do, which is a big reason I favor small modular reactors. I think that the build costs of such reactors would decline as the number increased, assuming competent management -- and, more important -- some control over the lawfare directed at nuclear power in the US.
(I learned much from Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never", especially about California politics, and would recommend it to you.)
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Unsurprisingly the state saw off this challenge to its authority. However hubris has set in. There is one case where a judge has remanded someone for just being present at the scene of some disorder, another where someone got a 2 year sentence for 'gesticulating' at the police. There is various other stuff, like one where a guy in the midlands went on an ill advised monologue about free speech on Twitter, in doing so retweeting another dodgy tweet, and ended up with 38 months in jail, he has 3 kids and grew up in care etc, they are losing their council house.
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
That's genuinely despicable about the Twitter man; I didn't know that. I don't know how anybody with a moral compass could support that.
Is this the man?
'He tweeted on Wednesday: "Mass deportations now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it". '
If so, Darkage' s description of the case doesn't seem accurate
That is a quote tweet (of a tweet by the councillor's wife), and it was part of a sequence of tweets where he actually tagged the police, because he was trying to prove a political point
In the circs, even quote-tweeting was foolish, but the intent was not to foment trouble, it was to query police tactics
For that he has got more than three years in jail, and he's lost his home
A few weeks cooling down in chokey would have been sufficient. Three years??
There's a picture of the actual tweet in the news story I linked to above, I don't how to do pictures here, so maybe someone can post it so people can judge for themselves.
As for tagging the police the only sign of that I can see is that in the list of hashtags under the tweet it has #f***northamptonshirepolice
If you are right then please provide a source, please don't take this the wrong way, but experience has taught me that you are often full of shit
Likewise, I find you consitently full of shit, rancid with hypocrisy, also myopic, ludicrous, and idiotic, and dumb as a fucking pit-pony AS WELL, but honestly it's nothing personal
Here's the evidence
"TYLER KAY WENT TO PRISON AND LOST HIS HOUSE FOR COPYING A POST ON X
Tyler was sentenced to 38 months in prison for copying a post made on X by Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councilor.
The post read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*king hotels full of the ba*ards for all I care…If that makes me a racist, so be it.”
Lucy had been arrested for the post, and Tyler was trying to prove that he wouldn’t be arrested.
He made this clear in a reply to his post, stating: “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
Despite his barrister explaining he was immature, had grown up in care, and would lose his council house as a result of a prison sentence, the judge said he “clearly intended to incite serious violence.”
He then sent Tyler, a father of 3, to prison for 3 years and 2 months.
i believe the arrest and conviction was correct. Even copying an incendiary tweet to make a point is extremely foolish during a time of tiots. But 3 years 2 months in jail?
The authoritarian state has gone mad
Given that he was only jailed on Friday how come he has already lost his home?
I mean it's incredibly likely to occur that he will lose his home (mainly because he won't be in it for 18 months and won't be paying the bills) but he hasn't lost it yet.
Edit - I'm also not sure about his “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
As the people I expect he is talking about (Farage and co) were a bit cleverer in what they actually wrote..
I agree on your second point. The whole tweet sequence was idiotic and, in this troubled time, the coppers were right to arrest him, and the court to convict him. But a few weeks in jail is surely sufficient. Not three years two months, which is enough to ruin his life and deprive him of a home. And he has three young kids
Here are the sentencing remarks for Tyler Kay. He also gave public advice about how to take part with his view of how to avoid arrest (false number plates, gloves etc).
It's 19 months in prison and 19 months on license. He only got a 20% not 33% reduction on the basic 4 year sentence due to guilty plea since it was not at the first opportunity.
I'm not sure what that sentence would be relating to an individual or several people rather than a riot situation.
I was correct, his housing is Council Housing, so of course he will lose it if just him - they won't keep it empty for a crim for 19 months. Not sure about whether he lived with his family, in which case it may be different depending who holds the tenancy.
@MattW Thanks for finding these sentencing remarks, they are useful. It seems like the idea that this was a 'free speech' thing is an implausible attempt at a defence, but certainly immaturity is evident. As a general point, I have said about these riots, it is just the way the state will deal with this type of issue to stop them, otherwise they will go on and on forever. I would agree with Leon that generally the jail sentences are too long. Amongst many other things it will radicalise people who will leave prison in a couple of years time with nothing to lose.
I see the relevant law was passed in 1986. Have the sentencing guidelines been made harsher in recent years? If not, it seems strange it is only now becoming apparent that they are too harsh.
There are laws that are on the statute book (public order stuff mostly) with very long jail sentences that can be pulled out the box when the state requires exceptional powers, ie like last week. This goes back to 1986 as you say. I think this is why the UK doesn't have a tradition of prolonged riots, these powers can be used to just send everyone to prison when the problems start, as was the case in 2011. My point earlier was that the state need to be extremely careful how it exercises these powers so it doesn't lose its credibility or come across as being unfair. The criticism of 2011 was that people got swept up that were just on the periphery of the action or observing it. It seems like they tried to correct it this time around but there were some obvious mis-steps, IE the judge implying that the fact they were someone was present at the action was as bad as being part of it (and then jailing them); of course the critics (Elon Musk in this instance) then jump straight on to it.
The pilot would have learned on literally his very first day of training, how a plane can stall and how a pilot recovers from that situation. Every new pilot spends a load of time in their little Cessna or similar, doing stalls and recoveries.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
It's really interesting how different Reform UK voters are from everyone else, including Conservative voters.
In the US these more extreme views became mainstream, because the moderates on the right mostly capitulated. The next year or two will determine so much about the future of British politics.
I wonder whether a long leadership contest will come to be seen as a mistake? A long period of pandering to the electorate of Tory members - currently more extreme than Tory voters - has the potential to set the Tories on a course to unite the right by converting moderate Tory voters into supporters of a Tory party imitating Reform.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Just got back online after a weekend without internet. Wow. As far as the riots go, it seems to me unquestionable that Sir Keir has played a blinder. The man will reign supreme over the issue of law and order for the foreseeable future. As for the British Right - they (Farage in particular) have got themselves into a right old pickle. Not sure where they go from here.
Except that we've not had any VI polling. But we have seen SKS's personal rating plummeting. So there’s that.
But yeh, apart from actual facts, yep, legendary crisis management.
On a tangential note, it is great to see Charles maturing into his Kingship and failing to take the same overtly political line on the riots that SKS has taken. Given his instincts politically, it must have been tempting, but he's kept his nose clean. He must be getting good advice from somewhere.
I too think that Starmer has played a blinder in response to the riots. They're now utterly quashed and the rioters are getting their just deserts in a hardline response. There is as yet no up to date polling to back up whether my view is shared, but I'll back my judgement in the meantime. What polling there was on Starmer's favourability was more general and was also taken at a point when the riots appeared briefly out of control, so it is likely to be positively misleading on the question of how the government handled the riots specifically.
Unsurprisingly the state saw off this challenge to its authority. However hubris has set in. There is one case where a judge has remanded someone for just being present at the scene of some disorder, another where someone got a 2 year sentence for 'gesticulating' at the police. There is various other stuff, like one where a guy in the midlands went on an ill advised monologue about free speech on Twitter, in doing so retweeting another dodgy tweet, and ended up with 38 months in jail, he has 3 kids and grew up in care etc, they are losing their council house.
For the government to maintain the plausibility of the narrative that this is 'the justice system running its course without fear or favour', instances like the above need to be rapidly corrected. At the moment they are being used by Musk etc as evidence in support of their view of the situation. They also risk unnerving their 'left liberal' support base if they carry on with things like the above.
That's genuinely despicable about the Twitter man; I didn't know that. I don't know how anybody with a moral compass could support that.
Is this the man?
'He tweeted on Wednesday: "Mass deportations now, set fire to all the f***ing hotels full of the b******s for all I care... If that makes me racist, so be it". '
If so, Darkage' s description of the case doesn't seem accurate
That is a quote tweet (of a tweet by the councillor's wife), and it was part of a sequence of tweets where he actually tagged the police, because he was trying to prove a political point
In the circs, even quote-tweeting was foolish, but the intent was not to foment trouble, it was to query police tactics
For that he has got more than three years in jail, and he's lost his home
A few weeks cooling down in chokey would have been sufficient. Three years??
There's a picture of the actual tweet in the news story I linked to above, I don't how to do pictures here, so maybe someone can post it so people can judge for themselves.
As for tagging the police the only sign of that I can see is that in the list of hashtags under the tweet it has #f***northamptonshirepolice
If you are right then please provide a source, please don't take this the wrong way, but experience has taught me that you are often full of shit
Likewise, I find you consitently full of shit, rancid with hypocrisy, also myopic, ludicrous, and idiotic, and dumb as a fucking pit-pony AS WELL, but honestly it's nothing personal
Here's the evidence
"TYLER KAY WENT TO PRISON AND LOST HIS HOUSE FOR COPYING A POST ON X
Tyler was sentenced to 38 months in prison for copying a post made on X by Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councilor.
The post read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*king hotels full of the ba*ards for all I care…If that makes me a racist, so be it.”
Lucy had been arrested for the post, and Tyler was trying to prove that he wouldn’t be arrested.
He made this clear in a reply to his post, stating: “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
Despite his barrister explaining he was immature, had grown up in care, and would lose his council house as a result of a prison sentence, the judge said he “clearly intended to incite serious violence.”
He then sent Tyler, a father of 3, to prison for 3 years and 2 months.
i believe the arrest and conviction was correct. Even copying an incendiary tweet to make a point is extremely foolish during a time of tiots. But 3 years 2 months in jail?
The authoritarian state has gone mad
Given that he was only jailed on Friday how come he has already lost his home?
I mean it's incredibly likely to occur that he will lose his home (mainly because he won't be in it for 18 months and won't be paying the bills) but he hasn't lost it yet.
Edit - I'm also not sure about his “My point is more, it’s one rule for some and another rule for others.”
As the people I expect he is talking about (Farage and co) were a bit cleverer in what they actually wrote..
I agree on your second point. The whole tweet sequence was idiotic and, in this troubled time, the coppers were right to arrest him, and the court to convict him. But a few weeks in jail is surely sufficient. Not three years two months, which is enough to ruin his life and deprive him of a home. And he has three young kids
Here are the sentencing remarks for Tyler Kay. He also gave public advice about how to take part with his view of how to avoid arrest (false number plates, gloves etc).
It's 19 months in prison and 19 months on license. He only got a 20% not 33% reduction on the basic 4 year sentence due to guilty plea since it was not at the first opportunity.
I'm not sure what that sentence would be relating to an individual or several people rather than a riot situation.
I was correct, his housing is Council Housing, so of course he will lose it if just him - they won't keep it empty for a crim for 19 months. Not sure about whether he lived with his family, in which case it may be different depending who holds the tenancy.
@MattW Thanks for finding these sentencing remarks, they are useful. It seems like the idea that this was a 'free speech' thing is an implausible attempt at a defence, but certainly immaturity is evident. As a general point, I have said about these riots, it is just the way the state will deal with this type of issue to stop them, otherwise they will go on and on forever. I would agree with Leon that generally the jail sentences are too long. Amongst many other things it will radicalise people who will leave prison in a couple of years time with nothing to lose.
I see the relevant law was passed in 1986. Have the sentencing guidelines been made harsher in recent years? If not, it seems strange it is only now becoming apparent that they are too harsh.
There are laws that are on the statute book (public order stuff mostly) with very long jail sentences that can be pulled out the box when the state requires exceptional powers, ie like last week. This goes back to 1986 as you say. I think this is why the UK doesn't have a tradition of prolonged riots, these powers can be used to just send everyone to prison when the problems start, as was the case in 2011. My point earlier was that the state need to be extremely careful how it exercises these powers so it doesn't lose its credibility or come across as being unfair. The criticism of 2011 was that people got swept up that were just on the periphery of the action or observing it. It seems like they tried to correct it this time around but there were some obvious mis-steps, IE the judge implying that the fact they were someone was present at the action was as bad as being part of it (and then jailing them); of course the critics (Elon Musk in this instance) then jump straight on to it.
There's also the thing that a lot of Usonians only look through their own cultural spectacles, which happens in a lot of prominent debates. The dividing line between 'free speech' and 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' is in different places by culture.
In the Trump trials I've been interested in the tradeoffs in Jury selection processes between restricting public commentary for 'sub judice' reasons (more in UK) and the extensive (USA) or brief (UK) resulting nature of jury selection to filter out bias in jury members which results. There's also an interesting variation in whether a 'majority' or others aspects of reaching a verdict (which may vary I guess by State or State vs Federal, or English vs Scottish here).
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
It's really interesting how different Reform UK voters are from everyone else, including Conservative voters.
In the US these more extreme views became mainstream, because the moderates on the right mostly capitulated. The next year or two will determine so much about the future of British politics.
I wonder whether a long leadership contest will come to be seen as a mistake? A long period of pandering to the electorate of Tory members - currently more extreme than Tory voters - has the potential to set the Tories on a course to unite the right by converting moderate Tory voters into supporters of a Tory party imitating Reform.
Not necessarily. The Republicans can exploit a vast pool of voters who are obsessed with guns and lunatic Protestant fundamentalism. Conditions here are different, so the ceiling of support for a Trumpian rage vehicle will (hopefully) be correspondingly lower.
I SO want Humza Yousaf to sue Elon Musk. It would be like Alien v Predator except Predator is 200 times bigger
Genuinely brave by Yousaf if he tries
In what jurisdiction is he planning to sue him?
No idea. But surely the UK because we don’t have free speech anymore and we have much more onerous libel laws
English and Scots Law are quite different. I've known English lawyers screw up because they forgot that. In this case I don't know which Mr Yousaf would go for, as it depends where something is more "published".
I SO want Humza Yousaf to sue Elon Musk. It would be like Alien v Predator except Predator is 200 times bigger
Genuinely brave by Yousaf if he tries
In what jurisdiction is he planning to sue him?
No idea. But surely the UK because we don’t have free speech anymore and we have much more onerous libel laws
Alternative interpretation: you can't trash someone's reputation with lies and expect to get away with it.
I have a weird feeling Musk will get away with it and Yousaf is bloviating
Oh yes, I am sure you are right in this instance. How does a UK court force Musk to pay up anyway. He got away with slandering Vern Unsworth after all.
I SO want Humza Yousaf to sue Elon Musk. It would be like Alien v Predator except Predator is 200 times bigger
Genuinely brave by Yousaf if he tries
In what jurisdiction is he planning to sue him?
No idea. But surely the UK because we don’t have free speech anymore and we have much more onerous libel laws
Alternative interpretation: you can't trash someone's reputation with lies and expect to get away with it.
I have a weird feeling Musk will get away with it and Yousaf is bloviating
Oh yes, I am sure you are right in this instance. How does a UK court force Musk to pay up anyway. He got away with slandering Vern Unsworth after all.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
That question doesn't distinguish between those who protested peacefully against the Southport murders and those who protested peacefully against the racist rioters. The high approval amongst Lab, LD and Green voters suggests a lot of approval of peaceful anti-fascist protestors.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
That question doesn't distinguish between those who protested peacefully against the Southport murders and those who protested peacefully against the racist rioters. The high approval amongst Lab, LD and Green voters suggests a lot of approval of peaceful anti-fascist protestors.
That seems to be wrong. YouGov were specifically asking about the post Southport protests
From the YouGov website. My capitals
“Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly TRIGGERED BY THE SOUTHPORT MURDERS. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%.
Isn't that the equivalent of both a (a) a hypothetical question and therefore (b) a misleading leading question? Surely precious few of those attending took part peacefully, yet the question pretends that they did. I think it likely that nearly all those attending events organised on far right social media went with the intention of behaving violently, committing racist acts and causing as much trouble as they could, so what were planned to be riots turned out to be riots.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Team GB. Amongst the most successful losers in the world.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Lots of countries win no medals at all, but one stands out as being western, wealthy, European, a fairly large population (over 5m) and a neighbour of ours: Finland. Anyone know why? No doubt they make up for it in the winter.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Team GB. Amongst the most successful losers in the world.
Think of the mountain of lottery tickets that were sacrificed to that end.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
That question doesn't distinguish between those who protested peacefully against the Southport murders and those who protested peacefully against the racist rioters. The high approval amongst Lab, LD and Green voters suggests a lot of approval of peaceful anti-fascist protestors.
Interesting paragraph from that Times article cited FPT
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
That question doesn't distinguish between those who protested peacefully against the Southport murders and those who protested peacefully against the racist rioters. The high approval amongst Lab, LD and Green voters suggests a lot of approval of peaceful anti-fascist protestors.
That seems to be wrong. YouGov were specifically asking about the post Southport protests
From the YouGov website. My capitals
“Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly TRIGGERED BY THE SOUTHPORT MURDERS. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%.
The counter protests were also triggered by the Southport Murders.
Certainly that was how I read the question when I was polled!
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Team GB. Amongst the most successful losers in the world.
Think of the mountain of lottery tickets that were sacrificed to that end.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Team GB. Amongst the most successful losers in the world.
Adopting the Sunil System of awarding Three points for a Gold, 2 for a Silver, 1 for a Bronze:
G S B Total points United States 120 88 42 250 China 120 54 24 198 France 48 52 22 122 Great Britain 42 44 29 115 Australia 54 38 16 108 Japan 60 24 13 97 Italy 36 26 15 77 Netherlands 45 14 12 71 Germany 36 26 8 70 South Korea 39 18 10 67 Canada 27 14 11 52 New Zealand 30 14 3 47 Hungary 18 14 6 38 Brazil 9 14 10 33 Spain 15 8 9 32 Uzbekistan 24 4 3 31 Iran 9 12 3 24 Sweden 12 8 3 23 Ukraine 9 10 4 23 Kenya 12 4 5 21
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Lots of countries win no medals at all, but one stands out as being western, wealthy, European, a fairly large population (over 5m) and a neighbour of ours: Finland. Anyone know why? No doubt they make up for it in the winter.
Can’t be arsed… Think when it comes down to it probably better to invest in stuff like education rather than elite sports?
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Team GB. Amongst the most successful losers in the world.
Adopting the Sunil System of awarding Three points for a Gold, 2 for a Silver, 1 for a Bronze:
G S B Total points United States 120 88 42 250 China 120 54 24 198 France 48 52 22 122 Great Britain 42 44 29 115 Australia 54 38 16 108 Japan 60 24 13 97 Italy 36 26 15 77 Netherlands 45 14 12 71 Germany 36 26 8 70 South Korea 39 18 10 67 Canada 27 14 11 52 New Zealand 30 14 3 47 Hungary 18 14 6 38 Brazil 9 14 10 33 Spain 15 8 9 32 Uzbekistan 24 4 3 31 Iran 9 12 3 24 Sweden 12 8 3 23 Ukraine 9 10 4 23 Kenya 12 4 5 21
You need to adjust the weightings a little, as your table still has France ahead of GB.
Humza Yousaf is threatening to sue Elon Musk, on TwiX, for calling him a racist
THAT would be entertaining. Musk is continuously goading him
Yousaf is an irrelevence. He’s had his 15 minutes.
It would be like the Al Fayed-Hamilton court case. You’d want neither side to win.
I don’t know how it works - sueing a foreigner for libel. Especially a trillionaire American with first amendment protection
Is Musk even obliged to defend himself? Can’t he just ignore it?
Yes. On the other hand, if Yousaf lent his voice to backing the campaign to boycott Tesla cars, that might have some potential to make Musk sit up and take notice, as there's real potential for such a campaign to take off with a bit of prominent backing here and there.
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
I'd go for:
Gold 4 Silver 2 Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
The British team finishes seventh on golds, fourth on silvers and second on bronzes. I think the general idea now is to pretend that winning stuff isn't really that important after all, and to celebrate how hard everyone tried instead.
Team GB. Amongst the most successful losers in the world.
Adopting the Sunil System of awarding Three points for a Gold, 2 for a Silver, 1 for a Bronze:
G S B Total points United States 120 88 42 250 China 120 54 24 198 France 48 52 22 122 Great Britain 42 44 29 115 Australia 54 38 16 108 Japan 60 24 13 97 Italy 36 26 15 77 Netherlands 45 14 12 71 Germany 36 26 8 70 South Korea 39 18 10 67 Canada 27 14 11 52 New Zealand 30 14 3 47 Hungary 18 14 6 38 Brazil 9 14 10 33 Spain 15 8 9 32 Uzbekistan 24 4 3 31 Iran 9 12 3 24 Sweden 12 8 3 23 Ukraine 9 10 4 23 Kenya 12 4 5 21
You need to adjust the weightings a little, as your table still has France ahead of GB.
Comments
The best leaders tend to be the most positive ones, the ambition to be a "shining city on a hill".
Kamala has been relentlessly and infectiously positive since she replaced Biden.
Trump has been miserable, dour and sulking.
Made me smile anyway.
But I think Trump holds Ohio and Florida
As our Sunil demonstrated a while back, there is more than one plausible way to compile a medal table.
The classic way is to list by golds first, and use silver and bronze as tie-breakers. The US tends however to do it by total medals. That usually enhances their position (and ours too).
Another way is to award points per medal - e.g. Gold 5, Silver 3, Bronze 1. Sunil did this and again it flattered us and the US. You can sod about with the ratios too, in which case you might well want to allocate relatively more for golds, because they really are a lot more valuable than silver and bronze.
A more controversial method would be to allocate more weight to the high status events. Most people accept that Track and Field is the centrepiece of the games, so medals there could be scored higher, with maybe a bonus for blue riband events like the 100m sprint, 1500m and marathon. Swimming, cycling and rowing would be in the mid-range. You could deduct points for winning the breakdancing.
How do like it so far?
Personally I think it was a highly successful games - for Paris, for France, and for the GB team.
"Polling for The Times by YouGov shows that 93 per cent of the public — including 87 per cent of Labour voters — believe the government should do more to deal with current levels of migration to the UK.
"And while only 8 per cent of the public had sympathy with the unrest, 58 per cent (including over half of all Labour voters) said they had sympathy with those who protested peacefully. More than a third (42 per cent) said that the demonstrations had been justified, while most worryingly for the government more than half (51 per cent) said that immigration is the top issue facing the country. This is a rise of 19 per cent since the election and the first time that immigration has topped YouGov’s issue tracker since 2016."
What have I missed ?
He expected to win in 2016 and in 2020 - how does he behave if he thinks he is going to lose.
Why would you cling to Trump if he starts to look like a loser? It's not as if anyone actually likes the guy.
Would you trust him with your money ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_accidents_and_incidents
and
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/09/science/boeing-starliner-nasa-astronauts-life-in-space/index.html
and
Boeing's general record recently.
https://x.com/ArchRose90/status/1822634978779287853
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1822547842172371115
It’s absurdly close given Trump is a convicted felon, a convicted fraudster, a convicted sex pest and a convicted liar.
It's 19 months in prison and 19 months on license. He only got a 20% not 33% reduction on the basic 4 year sentence due to guilty plea since it was not at the first opportunity.
I'm not sure what that sentence would be relating to an individual or several people rather than a riot situation.
I was correct, his housing is Council Housing, so of course he will lose it if just him - they won't keep it empty for a crim for 19 months. Not sure about whether he lived with his family, in which case it may be different depending who holds the tenancy.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/R-v-Tyler-Kay-Sentencing-remarks.pdf
Gold 4
Silver 2
Bronze 1
There's also expectations versus reality.
The silver in synchronised swimming seems to be better than yet another silver in the velodrome or athletics relays.
And then there are comparisons with other countries - the relative performance is much worse this year.
Can someone check to see if Max Verstappen was working for the Netherlands Olympic Team?
There are lots of single cat ladies in Columbus, Ohio.
Shady Vance is catfood.
Using my much fairer system — three points for gold, two for silver, one for bronze, per capita but requiring a minimum of 50 medals and penalising the host country by 12 per cent for home advantage — it is clear that Britain won the Olympics. Again.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/top-10-moments-highlights-paris-olympics-2024-pz29600sw
But there's no political ideology with Trump, it all about what benefits Trump - which in turn suggests that the people around him are in it only for themselves.
But 97% of Chinese manufacturers’ installations were in China. Only 1% of Europe’s new wind capacity was Chinese.
https://x.com/kyleichan/status/1822624727506051412
Half of all new car sales in China are now EVs.
They've stolen a march on the west.
Never mind, I'll do my bit on it, anyway:
- If rents are low and/or growing slowly, there's no need for rent controls. Only if rents are high and/or shooting up does anyone have any reason to want them
- If rents are high/spiralling, it means there's not enough supply to go around, or there's a price-fixing cartel in operation (and the cartel has control of a supermajority of the housing stock)
- If there's not enough supply to go around, it's going to be rationed. Pretty much by definition. You have three options, other than increasing supply (the actual solution):
- - Ration by price (rents go high/spiralling)
- - Ration by waiting list (you have to wait your turn, which may be lengthy if the supply deficit is significant (and the worse the prices under the first option, the longer is the wait)
- - Ration by perceived need (someone with the authority to make it stick steps in and says who is more worthy of getting a house/who needs it least)
Price controls reduce the monies available to increase or improve supply, so you end up in a vicious circle. You may say "But landlords won't improve properties" - but properties do get improved by landlords and, at least, usually upkept safely. Rent controls hit there, so not only do you not increase stock, your existing stock deteriorates. (A Swedish economist - not usually famous for being hostile to left-wing solutions - famously remarked that rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy housing, except for aerial bombing)
If you're in when rent controls come in, you're usually far better off than someone entering the market to rent somewhere afterwards. Landlords will be VERY picky, will put the rent up as much as possible, and the amount of availability will be decreased (so you end up with a waiting list scenario, anyway).
It's as effective a way of combating rental shortages as forcing on far-too-small clothes are as a way of combating ever-increasing weight (whilst still overeating and underexercising). Not only doesn't it achieve anything, you end up much more uncomfortable, and with your clothes splitting in an embarrassing fashion
It will a stream of foam flecked rants and deranged accusations about the Dem team even more bonkers than the ones he's tried so far.
But of course they may not panic because they know they have so many state officials ready to not certify the result if Trump loses.
If only because it will encourage more take up of sport among the general populace.
The West Indian sprinting and East African distance running always feels like an economy too narrowly focused on one particular industry.
Struggling to know who to support.
There were two sudden descent failures with "max" aircraft piloted by Americans. In both cases, the pilots were able to recover. Boeing should have taken strong actions immediately after the first, and even more so, after the second. (The Ethiopian loss was at a higher altitude, which might have made it harder for any pilot to recover.)
But we shouldn't imply that the long term term safety trend in US commercial aviation is still very good. And that hasn't changed -- in spite of Boeing's failures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA-WeacusP4
It doesn't look likely with these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_state_(U.S._state_government)
From the YouGov website. My capitals
“Sympathies with the views of those taking part in the protests are somewhat broader – six in ten Britons (58%) say they have a great deal or fair amount of sympathy for the views of those peacefully taking part in demonstrations that were ostensibly TRIGGERED BY THE SOUTHPORT MURDERS. This includes majorities of Labour and Lib Dem voters (53-56%), as well as two-thirds of Conservatives (64%), with Reform voters are most sympathetic at 83%.
THAT would be entertaining. Musk is continuously goading him
(President Obama had two permanent energy secretaries; both favor the increased use of nuclear power. You can decide for yourself whether the two are credible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz )
As a general point, I have said about these riots, it is just the way the state will deal with this type of issue to stop them, otherwise they will go on and on forever.
I would agree with Leon that generally the jail sentences are too long. Amongst many other things it will radicalise people who will leave prison in a couple of years time with nothing to lose.
Previous incidents (there have been several) were either down to icing or pilot error.
What made sense then, doesn't necessarily make sense any more.
https://x.com/Lis_Smith/status/1822640058500857889
Genuinely brave by Yousaf if he tries
General aviation (and particularly rotary wing general aviation) does not have such a good safety record.
Then Harris is performing much better than Biden on the economy simply because people 'know' or 'believe' she willl change Biden's policies.
If you are Trump you have reason to be a little miffed at these shiftings of the political reality. However, they are happening and he has real problems unless he can counter them.
On your question about nuclear power and benefits vs harms, a great resource (albeit now a few years old) is David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air"
It's available for free online, and the stuff on nuclear power starts here:
https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
(David MacKay was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge)
I do, which is a big reason I favor small modular reactors. I think that the build costs of such reactors would decline as the number increased, assuming competent management -- and, more important -- some control over the lawfare directed at nuclear power in the US.
(I learned much from Shellenberger's "Apocalypse Never", especially about California politics, and would recommend it to you.)
the weights above her head.
In the US these more extreme views became mainstream, because the moderates on the right mostly capitulated. The next year or two will determine so much about the future of British politics.
I wonder whether a long leadership contest will come to be seen as a mistake? A long period of pandering to the electorate of Tory members - currently more extreme than Tory voters - has the potential to set the Tories on a course to unite the right by converting moderate Tory voters into supporters of a Tory party imitating Reform.
In the Trump trials I've been interested in the tradeoffs in Jury selection processes between restricting public commentary for 'sub judice' reasons (more in UK) and the extensive (USA) or brief (UK) resulting nature of jury selection to filter out bias in jury members which results. There's also an interesting variation in whether a 'majority' or others aspects of reaching a verdict (which may vary I guess by State or State vs Federal, or English vs Scottish here).
It would be like the Al Fayed-Hamilton court case. You’d want neither side to win.
Is Musk even obliged to defend himself? Can’t he just ignore it?
Suing foreigners happens all the time in London.
Edit: would make a good ski-jump in East London.
Certainly that was how I read the question when I was polled!
I’m on the left and voted labour in 2024 and have voted labour at every Election since I first voted.
😂😂😂😂👍