Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
The good news is Russia's methods seem a bit cack handed and obvious these days. China is much more sophisticated at this stuff.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Yep you are right. I never understand the idea that a majority is so big it has to be chipped away at. If you are unpopular you can be slaughtered in one go. It is just a numbers game.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
It is a numbers game. I would however say the Tories will need a lot more to line up in order to become the biggest party and potentially be in the position to form the next government than it will take for Labour to lose its majority. A General Election is a set of 650 mini elections and the Tories suffer from far more of those seats being currently out of play than Labour, including most of London, Scotland, Wales and English cities as well as being increasingly losing their previous heartlands in the South to the Lib Dems. To put another way, there are reasons to believe Labour's vote will remain more efficient than the Tories unless something big changes.
Or to put it yet another way the numbers game for the Tories is to win more votes than both Labour and the Lib Dems while losing a large chunk of votes to Reform.
If the next GE looks like being Tories largest party, but short of a majority, the interesting question for the Tory leader is "who would you prefer as your coalition partners, Lib Dems or Reform?"
That assumes, of course, that the LD’s would be prepared to enter coalition with the Tories. After last time I would think C&S would be the limit!
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
Do you think it could blow up in Putin's face? It's a bit of a risk putting someone in the White House who is less keen than Biden on avoiding escalation.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
As I've pointed out several times, Leon is just deflecting. He's possibly unconsciously embarrassed for having been a Pool fan.
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
Is it clear that we don't do that?
(I haven't gone to the trouble of archiving the article to be able to read all of it.)
When it became obvious that bogus asylum seekers were pretending to be children while actually being 19 or 25 - fighting age - it was requested of the UKG that they simply test them and refuse them if they were lying about their age
We could have done that to this murdering bastard. Then chucked him out. From that report it seems a dentist actually TOLD the UKG he was older than he claimed
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
The BCS is pretty difficult to manipulate and that's what most people tend to refer to these days. More useful than recorded crime.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
Does England and wales have the highest rape rate in Europe or not? Can we trust those stats?
The BCS will tell you if rapes are rising or falling, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It may be less helpful when considering the overall number.
What you definitely can't do is take the apsolute numbers from it and compare it to the numbers from elsewhere, unless those numbers are compiled on the same basis (not police data or the like).
Given that a lot of people who claim to have been raped for don't also summon the police, the BCS rape data will be particularly hard to compare meaningfully with data produced in other countries.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
Quite so. Some hypocrisy is just the human condition.
Russia refuses to live in peace with its neighbours, and therefore it's entirely right to work against Russia.
I recall a hilarious conversation with a very pro-Putin fellow worker (Russian) a few years back. The fact that the US had a peaceful and relaxed relationship with Canada was offensive to him.
Russia, unlike the USA, is incapable of diplomacy. It can only threaten or bribe.
Yes.
I've know him many years. I recall his reaction to the Pristina Incident. For those who don't remember, Russian forces tried to block NATO from the airport in the aftermath of the Kosovo War, to protect their ally Serbia.
The Russian paratroops at the airport were completely surrounded. The Russian government talked of flying in support to them. The former East Blok countries said they wouldn't allow flights over their territory. The Russians said they would send them anyway. A Czech general was quoted as telling the Russians that he remembered 68 and would really welcome shooting down a Russian military flight.
My Russian friend couldn't understand the Czech general's attitude - how could they forget their Russian masters so quickly?
That's the most establishment of establishment choices for an anti-establishment vote.
It would be like our last election having a massive Reform and Corbynite vote and then Olly Robins walzing in as PM.
I am trying to find the polling but back in 2021 when there was talk of him running for the Presidency there was polling showing Barnier having something like 70% approval for his handling of Brexit amongst the French.
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
Perhaps this government will actually enforce it ? There are dozens of different ways in which they might show themselves to be an improvement in their predecessor.
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
Is it clear that we don't do that?
(I haven't gone to the trouble of archiving the article to be able to read all of it.)
I'm just surprised that the dentist didn't get struck off for suggesting the chap wasn't 19. As I understand it, the medicos take the position that testing someone's age is impracticable, immoral and fattening. Or something like.
As to joined up thinking about checking finger prints.... Ha Ha. For many years, background checks in this country didn't bother looking aboard. So you could pass an enhanced check to work with children, *so long as you hadn't committed your crimes in this country*.
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
The BCS is pretty difficult to manipulate and that's what most people tend to refer to these days. More useful than recorded crime.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
Does England and wales have the highest rape rate in Europe or not? Can we trust those stats?
The BCS will tell you if rapes are rising or falling, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It may be less helpful when considering the overall number.
What you definitely can't do is take the apsolute numbers from it and compare it to the numbers from elsewhere, unless those numbers are compiled on the same basis (not police data or the like).
Given that a lot of people who claim to have been raped for don't also summon the police, the BCS rape data will be particularly hard to compare meaningfully with data produced in other countries.
It’s just that I’ve read this alarming stat on TwiX and it strikes me as very odd we’re not talking about it, IF it is true
In the last few years we overtook Sweden to become the rape capital of Europe, it seems. Is this a statistical anomaly or is this a real phenomenon?
I genuinely don’t know but the mere possibility is disquieting
Because there is what feels like one every week, and if you point out the common factors, people shout "Racist" repeatedly.
One of the better questions to ask about this particular case is why do we not routinely fingerprint asylum seekers and run the prints against every known database, especially foreign ones like interpol? If we'd done that when this charming chappie rocked up, we would have spotted straight away that he was a 19 year old double murderer, rather than an innocent 14 year old.
But the coroner seems to think for some reason that there is no need for any further enquiries into how this chap came to be here, unidentified, and with people seemingly unconcerned about his knife wielding tendencies.
Is it clear that we don't do that?
(I haven't gone to the trouble of archiving the article to be able to read all of it.)
We appear not to have done so in his case - as when we finally did *after he murdered someone in the UK* we found that Interpol already had his prints registered because he was wanted for a double murder in Serbia.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
Georgians do have their own opinions on this. Which are pretty negative, as you'll have seen on telly. Countries bordering Russia are more than just passive proxies for great power rivalries.
The former leader Misha Saakashvili is of course still locked up by those lovely reasonable Georgian Dream people.
It is not for me to say whether their new law is a good one or a bad one, but you must agree that it is simply hypocritical to be scandalised at Russian funding of Western organisations but expect Western funding of Russian organisations to pass without comment and complain that it is authoritarianism when a law is passed that prevents this.
I'm quite happy for there to be some hypocrisy if it means not allowing our enemies to triumph. If we believe that Western liberal democracy is a good thing and Russian authoritarianism and imperialism is bad, then we should want to be suppressing the influence of the latter here and promoting the influence of the former there.
There is a distance between hypocrisy and equivalence though. You may think I'm naive to believe this, but I do not think the actions of the Russian state in influence operations and troll farming are on a moral par with those of the US and its allies.
Quite so. Some hypocrisy is just the human condition.
Russia refuses to live in peace with its neighbours, and therefore it's entirely right to work against Russia.
I recall a hilarious conversation with a very pro-Putin fellow worker (Russian) a few years back. The fact that the US had a peaceful and relaxed relationship with Canada was offensive to him.
Russia, unlike the USA, is incapable of diplomacy. It can only threaten or bribe.
Yes.
I've know him many years. I recall his reaction to the Pristina Incident. For those who don't remember, Russian forces tried to block NATO from the airport in the aftermath of the Kosovo War, to protect their ally Serbia.
The Russian paratroops at the airport were completely surrounded. The Russian government talked of flying in support to them. The former East Blok countries said they wouldn't allow flights over their territory. The Russians said they would send them anyway. A Czech general was quoted as telling the Russians that he remembered 68 and would really welcome shooting down a Russian military flight.
My Russian friend couldn't understand the Czech general's attitude - how could they forget their Russian masters so quickly?
I’m off to pristina in a couple of weeks
I’m going to find out if young kosovans really are called “toniblair”
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
The BCS is pretty difficult to manipulate and that's what most people tend to refer to these days. More useful than recorded crime.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
Does England and wales have the highest rape rate in Europe or not? Can we trust those stats?
The BCS is a survey of individuals' experience of crime, so it is completely independent of anything the police report. That's why it is very difficult (though not impossible) to manipulate. Not impossible because, like polling, you can of course phrase questions in different ways - but the BCS questions are consistent over the years. I don't know what the crime survey stats say about rape.
It is a well known phenomenon, that when a crime is taken seriously, there is more reporting of it. For example, a number of years back, some Scandinavian countries made dealing with sex crimes a priority. Reporting soared.
Consider - between 1865 and 1965, there were no prosecutions for murder of black people by white people in Mississippi, USA. What does that tell us about Mississippi?
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
We've avoided a constitutional crisis as the King rightly accepts the will of the people.
There had been suggestions that two hereditary peers would survive the purge because they carry out ceremonial roles in the Lords on behalf of the monarch: The Earl Marshal, a role held by the dukes of Norfolk since 1672, which involves overseeing the state opening of parliament as well as royal events such as funerals and coronations; and the Lord Great Chamberlain, the sovereign’s representative in parliament, a position that rotates between three families.
But government sources said a deal had been struck following discussions with Buckingham Palace that would allow the ceremonial elements of the roles to continue without granting their holders the right to sit and vote in the Lords.
That's the most establishment of establishment choices for an anti-establishment vote.
It would be like our last election having a massive Reform and Corbynite vote and then Olly Robins walzing in as PM.
I am trying to find the polling but back in 2021 when there was talk of him running for the Presidency there was polling showing Barnier having something like 70% approval for his handling of Brexit amongst the French.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
The good news is Russia's methods seem a bit cack handed and obvious these days. China is much more sophisticated at this stuff.
Seems so. The subtlety is such that Putin might as well appear at a Trump rally.
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Yep you are right. I never understand the idea that a majority is so big it has to be chipped away at. If you are unpopular you can be slaughtered in one go. It is just a numbers game.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
It is a numbers game. I would however say the Tories will need a lot more to line up in order to become the biggest party and potentially be in the position to form the next government than it will take for Labour to lose its majority. A General Election is a set of 650 mini elections and the Tories suffer from far more of those seats being currently out of play than Labour, including most of London, Scotland, Wales and English cities as well as being increasingly losing their previous heartlands in the South to the Lib Dems. To put another way, there are reasons to believe Labour's vote will remain more efficient than the Tories unless something big changes.
Or to put it yet another way the numbers game for the Tories is to win more votes than both Labour and the Lib Dems while losing a large chunk of votes to Reform.
If the next GE looks like being Tories largest party, but short of a majority, the interesting question for the Tory leader is "who would you prefer as your coalition partners, Lib Dems or Reform?"
That assumes, of course, that the LD’s would be prepared to enter coalition with the Tories. After last time I would think C&S would be the limit!
That's the most establishment of establishment choices for an anti-establishment vote.
It would be like our last election having a massive Reform and Corbynite vote and then Olly Robins walzing in as PM.
I am trying to find the polling but back in 2021 when there was talk of him running for the Presidency there was polling showing Barnier having something like 70% approval for his handling of Brexit amongst the French.
So ? Brexit is over.
This is about being PM of France.
But they saw that as a good thing for being PM/President.
Remember the UK held all the cards and Barnier got a brilliant deal for the EU.
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
We've avoided a constitutional crisis as the King rightly accepts the will of the people.
There had been suggestions that two hereditary peers would survive the purge because they carry out ceremonial roles in the Lords on behalf of the monarch: The Earl Marshal, a role held by the dukes of Norfolk since 1672, which involves overseeing the state opening of parliament as well as royal events such as funerals and coronations; and the Lord Great Chamberlain, the sovereign’s representative in parliament, a position that rotates between three families.
But government sources said a deal had been struck following discussions with Buckingham Palace that would allow the ceremonial elements of the roles to continue without granting their holders the right to sit and vote in the Lords.
I approve of this. Keep the amusing ruritanian flummery - it adds to the gaiety of the nation. And my god we need some gaiety
But the hereditary peers had to go. Overdue
I’d scrap the whole house and start again with a new House of Lords organised on a federal basis from the 4 home nations
That's the most establishment of establishment choices for an anti-establishment vote.
It would be like our last election having a massive Reform and Corbynite vote and then Olly Robins walzing in as PM.
I am trying to find the polling but back in 2021 when there was talk of him running for the Presidency there was polling showing Barnier having something like 70% approval for his handling of Brexit amongst the French.
So ? Brexit is over.
This is about being PM of France.
But they saw that as a good thing for being PM/President.
Remember the UK held all the cards and Barnier got a brilliant deal for the EU.
It's British Remoaners who are obsessed with Brexit and view Barnier as a pin-up to complement their blue and yellow star duvet covers, not the French.
Sometimes the only conclusion I can draw from these stories is that the British authorities actively hate the British people and want us to come to harm
That's not far off the truth. If power is exercised by a distanced elite then they measure themselves against other elites, not by popular approval. As growth is the elite metric, they compete against eaCh other to stimulate growth. The way the UK stimulates growth is to import more and more low wage workers, which also replaces the leakage of high-wage workers to sunnier climes. But continuous competition for survival causes stress and bad behaviour, and lack of a coherent national sense of good and evil ends up...well, here. If the Conservatives and Labour were replaced by malevolent space aliens, they would act exactly the same,
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
I don't support an elected Upper House but I do support ending hereditary peers. You can't be getting a seat in Parliament purely on account of who your family is. That's just not defensible.
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
I don't support an elected Upper House but I do support ending hereditary peers. You can't be getting a seat in Parliament purely on account of who your family is. That's just not defensible.
Should people get seats for being high-status males, someone called Elon wants to know.
Analysts at Panmure Liberum think the UK will be the “standout performer” among major economies in the months to come with firms set to benefit from strengthening domestic demand.
More accurately, Brexit is making sod all difference to our economic performance as some of us predicted.
I can assure you we'd be doing better with the counterfactual of being in the EU. I can tell you one group doing very well out of Brexit are EU based accountancy firms.
No you can’t make that assurance. No one can because there are now too many confounding variables. If we’d stayed in the EU who would have governed us the last 8 years? Maybe corbyn would have won and we’d now be like Venezuela
The only result from Brexit has been increased trade friction with the EU. It's done sweet FA to improve the boats situation, we're taking exactly the same stances as them on stuff like climate change, Ukraine - even the pop bottles are ridiculously attached to the bottles now as noone is deviating product manufacture solely for the UK market (Unless they have to such as LHD/RHD cars). If our leaders were any good we might have been able to build something better outside the EU but they're all useless so it's simply a net negative.
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
I don't support an elected Upper House but I do support ending hereditary peers. You can't be getting a seat in Parliament purely on account of who your family is. That's just not defensible.
Agreed. As Leon notes, it's fun to have some of these people around for occasions like state funerals, but giving them actual power seems, well, odd. Hopefully we can banish the bishops at the same time for similar reasons (also that they're all twats).
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
I don't support an elected Upper House but I do support ending hereditary peers. You can't be getting a seat in Parliament purely on account of who your family is. That's just not defensible.
Should people get seats for being high-status males, someone called Elon wants to know.
People already effectively get seats for being high status individuals within commuting distance of London.
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
This is an outrage.
They're the only ones with class in there.
We need the Duke of Wellington.
No, he's got the boot.
My favourite by-election was when the Duke of Wellington beat the Marquess of Abergavenny by 21 votes to 6 votes in a by-election in September 2015 using AV:
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
I don't support an elected Upper House but I do support ending hereditary peers. You can't be getting a seat in Parliament purely on account of who your family is. That's just not defensible.
Agreed. As Leon notes, it's fun to have some of these people around for occasions like state funerals, but giving them actual power seems, well, odd. Hopefully we can banish the bishops at the same time for similar reasons (also that they're all twats).
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
Do you think it could blow up in Putin's face? It's a bit of a risk putting someone in the White House who is less keen than Biden on avoiding escalation.
I would have to defer to Vladimir's assessment of what's best for Vladimir. He's a little shrewdie after all. Famous for it.
But it probably boils down to him sussing Trump as that easiest of creatures to manipulate - an ignorant and vain old man.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
I did tell Dave if he was prepared to make me the Duke of Sheffield I would be prepared to change my views on the House of Lords.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
I did tell Dave if he was prepared to make me the Duke of Sheffield I would be prepared to change my views on the House of Lords.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
I did tell Dave if he was prepared to make me the Duke of Sheffield I would be prepared to change my views on the House of Lords.
Is the Duke of Sheffield not Dave’s brother-in-law or father-in-law?
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
Do you think it could blow up in Putin's face? It's a bit of a risk putting someone in the White House who is less keen than Biden on avoiding escalation.
I would have to defer to Vladimir's assessment of what's best for Vladimir. He's a little shrewdie after all. Famous for it.
But it probably boils down to him sussing Trump as that easiest of creatures to manipulate - an ignorant and vain old man.
Is he? It sounds like you have a high assessment of him. Is he smarter than Western politicians?
It's very easy to talk about a "crime surge" and blaming Labour for letting people out of prison early.
The truth, as we all know, is the prisons are full because the useless Conservatives, in Government, talked tough on crime and imposed even more legislation restricting our civil liberties but did the sum total of sod-all to improve prison capacity or recruit prison officers.
They failed, not Labour. Labour are left, as usual, to pick up the pieces.
And somebody on here pines for the return of Rishi Sunak - yeah, right.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
Do you think it could blow up in Putin's face? It's a bit of a risk putting someone in the White House who is less keen than Biden on avoiding escalation.
I would have to defer to Vladimir's assessment of what's best for Vladimir. He's a little shrewdie after all. Famous for it.
But it probably boils down to him sussing Trump as that easiest of creatures to manipulate - an ignorant and vain old man.
Is he? It sounds like you have a high assessment of him. Is he smarter than Western politicians?
Is this what you want to do with your life, William, ask people these stupid gotcha questions?
I don’t exactly have a high opinion of conservatives but I will admit I do not expect “no we are literally getting paid by Russia” and “actually Hitler, yes that Hitler, was the good guy” to drop at the same time https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
Nice to agree with you about something, though I somehow think it isn't going to happen.
I shall be sorry to see the remaining hereditaries go, and hope provision will be made for some of them on a 'life peerage' basis.
I would far rather get rid of some of the current appointed ones.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
I did tell Dave if he was prepared to make me the Duke of Sheffield I would be prepared to change my views on the House of Lords.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
I did tell Dave if he was prepared to make me the Duke of Sheffield I would be prepared to change my views on the House of Lords.
Is the Duke of Sheffield not Dave’s brother-in-law or father-in-law?
This idea that Labour "must" be in for two terms because they won a large majority is false.
That large majority was achieved on a low vote on a low turnout and was largely a function of a split and dispersed vote amongst their opponents, which was concentrated where it mattered to eject the previous administration. In one parliament, the electorate overturned a majority of 80 in 2019 for the Conservatives to one of 172 in 2024 for Labour. And the latter is arguably the weaker one.
Seat totals are a function of voter behaviour and no longer have to be "chipped" at over several cycles to move, with voters giving new PMs the benefit of the doubt and needing to forget the memories of the last. All that has changed, and it's more transactional.
If voters want Labour out and the Tories in (big if) then they will arrange themselves to do it, but that will require very poor performance from the former and very good leadership from the latter.
Nothing is a given.
Yep you are right. I never understand the idea that a majority is so big it has to be chipped away at. If you are unpopular you can be slaughtered in one go. It is just a numbers game.
But realistically they are going to be here for 4 years (or if unpopular at the end of that it will be 5 years). I don't go along with @Luckyguy1983 thinking they will only last a couple of years because of some catastrophe or a skeleton in Starmer's cupboard (I mean why does he think there are skeletons and even if there are he will be replaced by another Labour PM, as per the last Govt). Of course a black swan event might happen, but by definition they are rare.
So on that basis I don't get the Tories hype about how bad this Govt is at this stage. Give it a bit more time. They will cock up. There is a budget in a few weeks. That should supply you with some ammo. Chill and concentrate on sorting yourselves out as a priority. They say Govts lose elections, oppositions don't win them, but the Tories need to be in a better place for that maxim to still be true.
It is a numbers game. I would however say the Tories will need a lot more to line up in order to become the biggest party and potentially be in the position to form the next government than it will take for Labour to lose its majority. A General Election is a set of 650 mini elections and the Tories suffer from far more of those seats being currently out of play than Labour, including most of London, Scotland, Wales and English cities as well as being increasingly losing their previous heartlands in the South to the Lib Dems. To put another way, there are reasons to believe Labour's vote will remain more efficient than the Tories unless something big changes.
Or to put it yet another way the numbers game for the Tories is to win more votes than both Labour and the Lib Dems while losing a large chunk of votes to Reform.
If the next GE looks like being Tories largest party, but short of a majority, the interesting question for the Tory leader is "who would you prefer as your coalition partners, Lib Dems or Reform?"
Surely the only answer to that is "it will be dictated by the numbers", as in 2010.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
I doubt Putin cares so much about who is in the White House, what he cares about is us distrusting each other. The Dems' lawfare of the last four years play into his hands as much as anything Trump has done.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
Speaking of such arcane things, a question I cannot finsd an answer to, though people must have worked on it.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
I did tell Dave if he was prepared to make me the Duke of Sheffield I would be prepared to change my views on the House of Lords.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
I did tell Dave if he was prepared to make me the Duke of Sheffield I would be prepared to change my views on the House of Lords.
Is the Duke of Sheffield not Dave’s brother-in-law or father-in-law?
No, his father-in-law is Sir Reginald Sheffield a mere baronet, not even a member of the Lords.
An interesting set of local by-elections today. There are 6 where the sitting Labour councillor has been elected as an MP, There are 3 in Camden and one each in Cheshire East, Manchester, and Redcar and Cleveland. There is also an Ind defence in Merthyr Tydfil.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
Speaking of such arcane things, a question I cannot finsd an answer to, though people must have worked on it.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
You're not wrong that it was started by a household appliance, you are considerably wrong in thinking that is a primary cause of a raging inferno in a tower block that was supposed to comply with building regs and be subdivided into small blocks with fireproof boundaries. There will always be small fires, dropped cigarette, shorting electrical appliance etc, they shouldn't result in a raging inferno. There's a very good Radio 4 podcast on Grenfell.
Thanks for the heads-up on the podcast.
I'm thinking around a header I'm putting together for the weekend, and the report goes very wide into all kind of things - so I'm thinking similarly.
"There will always be ... X" is never a reason to ignore anything imo. That's what they used to say about electrical kit within reach of a bath, trailing kettle wires in reach of toddlers, cooker off switches at the back so you had to reach over the pan fire to turn it off, electrical sockets near sinks, electric shocks before earth leakage trips were required, and all the rest.
Of the 7 or 8 fires I have seen quoted as precedent, all of them are in Social Housing blocks (HA or Council, including Worcester Park 2020), and all of them were started by your list of causes (electrical appliances or wiring, one candle on top of a TV, and one dropped cigarette).
I think both need to be addressed.
One point is that Council / HA housing is not regulated anything like as thoroughly as the Private Sector; they get to have a "Code of Practice" rather than prescribed legislation. For example, a Private LL is required to have a full professional electrical inspection every 5 years; a Council is merely required to "make sure it is safe" *. The difference is especially stark in my experience between University Halls of Residence and sometimes identical Private accommodation.
A second point is that by paying attention to "infernos" we ignore the far higher bar on the pareto chart, which is deaths in "small fires". It is as I see it the same as the effect that huge attention is garnered by rail or air crashes, but there is a conspiracy of silence about the 20 or 50 times as many people killed by crashes on our roads.
Hardly a conspiracy of silence, deaths in car accidents are often on the news, but complacency perhaps, given that our roads are among the safest, even for cyclists! Safer even than much-vaunted cycling paradise, NL.
ETA looking around parked cars finds a tremendous number of dents and scratches so if I were minister for road safety, I'd investigate what is causing all these low-level incidents in case it is the same cause for deaths, plus or minus a good helping of luck.
The minor dents and scratches are due to cars being bigger than they used to be (most are now genuine 5-seaters) and roads and car park spaces no wider than before.
Returning to the electrical appliance issue, you are correct and there are regulations on them. Unfortunately ebay/amazon marketplace providing a route for direct sales from China etc of non-compliant goods and cuts to trading standards means that door is now wide open.
On RTA / KSIs, could be solved by more traffic police, speed cameras, HGV regulations to design out blind spots but with the first two it's apparently hugely unpopular to enforce traffic regulations.
"Steve Baker, former UK Brexit minister and leader of the European Research Group said in response to news of Michel Barnier’s appointment as France’s prime minister:
“I would wish him well, he is certainly going to need it as he will have his hands full dealing with the government.”
“Michel Barnier is undoubtedly a very polished and authoritative and very consummate politician,” he said.
“I am sure he will step into the role with great skill and flair but whether that is a good thing for UK relations with French is another thing,” he added."
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
Speaking of such arcane things, a question I cannot finsd an answer to, though people must have worked on it.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
I’ve got a horrible LEONDAMUS prognosis and it’s throbbing painfully
I reckon there’s going to be a surge in crime under this govt
1. We are surely reaching a critical mass of bogus and dangerous asylum seekers like that guy in the depressing telegraph report. Fighting age young men with psycho tendencies. That, apparently, the Home Office is incapable of detecting. Like they can’t detect that a 14 year old is actually 19 despite a dentist telling them
2. Labour are letting out lots of violent offenders early. Sex offenders too. Crimes known for their recidivism
Add that together. Not good
Crime stats are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate. I for one have every confidence that under Sir 2TK, MININUM will report a benign downward trajectory in all offences.
The BCS is pretty difficult to manipulate and that's what most people tend to refer to these days. More useful than recorded crime.
It shows what we've all known for a while. Most violent and personal crime down long term, online fraud and phishing up massively, and things like car crime also having a boomlet.
Does England and wales have the highest rape rate in Europe or not? Can we trust those stats?
The BCS will tell you if rapes are rising or falling, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It may be less helpful when considering the overall number.
What you definitely can't do is take the apsolute numbers from it and compare it to the numbers from elsewhere, unless those numbers are compiled on the same basis (not police data or the like).
Given that a lot of people who claim to have been raped for don't also summon the police, the BCS rape data will be particularly hard to compare meaningfully with data produced in other countries.
It’s just that I’ve read this alarming stat on TwiX
"Steve Baker, former UK Brexit minister and leader of the European Research Group said in response to news of Michel Barnier’s appointment as France’s prime minister:
“I would wish him well, he is certainly going to need it as he will have his hands full dealing with the government.”
“Michel Barnier is undoubtedly a very polished and authoritative and very consummate politician,” he said.
“I am sure he will step into the role with great skill and flair but whether that is a good thing for UK relations with French is another thing,” he added."
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
I doubt Putin cares so much about who is in the White House, what he cares about is us distrusting each other. The Dems' lawfare of the last four years play into his hands as much as anything Trump has done.
Trump: tried to overthrow the election result
Dems: passed some laws
I kinda think Trump plays into Putin's hands more on this one.
That's the most establishment of establishment choices for an anti-establishment vote.
It would be like our last election having a massive Reform and Corbynite vote and then Olly Robins walzing in as PM.
I am trying to find the polling but back in 2021 when there was talk of him running for the Presidency there was polling showing Barnier having something like 70% approval for his handling of Brexit amongst the French.
70% approval is not surprising, but to be honest it wasn't difficult to look good. Just look at the opposition he had to deal with.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
Speaking of such arcane things, a question I cannot finsd an answer to, though people must have worked on it.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
Speaking of such arcane things, a question I cannot finsd an answer to, though people must have worked on it.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
You're not wrong that it was started by a household appliance, you are considerably wrong in thinking that is a primary cause of a raging inferno in a tower block that was supposed to comply with building regs and be subdivided into small blocks with fireproof boundaries. There will always be small fires, dropped cigarette, shorting electrical appliance etc, they shouldn't result in a raging inferno. There's a very good Radio 4 podcast on Grenfell.
Thanks for the heads-up on the podcast.
I'm thinking around a header I'm putting together for the weekend, and the report goes very wide into all kind of things - so I'm thinking similarly.
"There will always be ... X" is never a reason to ignore anything imo. That's what they used to say about electrical kit within reach of a bath, trailing kettle wires in reach of toddlers, cooker off switches at the back so you had to reach over the pan fire to turn it off, electrical sockets near sinks, electric shocks before earth leakage trips were required, and all the rest.
Of the 7 or 8 fires I have seen quoted as precedent, all of them are in Social Housing blocks (HA or Council, including Worcester Park 2020), and all of them were started by your list of causes (electrical appliances or wiring, one candle on top of a TV, and one dropped cigarette).
I think both need to be addressed.
One point is that Council / HA housing is not regulated anything like as thoroughly as the Private Sector; they get to have a "Code of Practice" rather than prescribed legislation. For example, a Private LL is required to have a full professional electrical inspection every 5 years; a Council is merely required to "make sure it is safe" *. The difference is especially stark in my experience between University Halls of Residence and sometimes identical Private accommodation.
A second point is that by paying attention to "infernos" we ignore the far higher bar on the pareto chart, which is deaths in "small fires". It is as I see it the same as the effect that huge attention is garnered by rail or air crashes, but there is a conspiracy of silence about the 20 or 50 times as many people killed by crashes on our roads.
Hardly a conspiracy of silence, deaths in car accidents are often on the news, but complacency perhaps, given that our roads are among the safest, even for cyclists! Safer even than much-vaunted cycling paradise, NL.
ETA looking around parked cars finds a tremendous number of dents and scratches so if I were minister for road safety, I'd investigate what is causing all these low-level incidents in case it is the same cause for deaths, plus or minus a good helping of luck.
The minor dents and scratches are due to cars being bigger than they used to be (most are now genuine 5-seaters) and roads and car park spaces no wider than before.
Returning to the electrical appliance issue, you are correct and there are regulations on them. Unfortunately ebay/amazon marketplace providing a route for direct sales from China etc of non-compliant goods and cuts to trading standards means that door is now wide open.
On RTA / KSIs, could be solved by more traffic police, speed cameras, HGV regulations to design out blind spots but with the first two it's apparently hugely unpopular to enforce traffic regulations.
Stricter enforcement of speed limits would be more acceptable if the speed limits were seen as reasonable. Much of the world allows 80/130k or more as its highest limits, and there's no real reason I can see why our motorways aren't capable of handling an 80 limit. Instead we get zones of 60mph "for air quality" and endless 50 roadworks zones where nobody is working. This evening I'll be driving up the M3 where there are two such zones, and the 50 limit is maintained in the gap between them.
"Steve Baker, former UK Brexit minister and leader of the European Research Group said in response to news of Michel Barnier’s appointment as France’s prime minister:
“I would wish him well, he is certainly going to need it as he will have his hands full dealing with the government.”
“Michel Barnier is undoubtedly a very polished and authoritative and very consummate politician,” he said.
“I am sure he will step into the role with great skill and flair but whether that is a good thing for UK relations with French is another thing,” he added."
It really doesn’t matter. He’s a lame duck PM under a lame duck POTFR
Macron has been walloped and the Parliament is bitterly divided between hard right and mad left
Nothing will get done
The French PM doesn’t really have any foreign policy responsibility anyway. That’s the president’s area.
On foreign policy I think Macron still has significant influence, whatever the domestic situation. As did Sarkozy when he was already deeply unpopular in France. The absence of a big hitter in the German chancellorship helps.
(I had to correct the autocorrect on “big hitter in the German chancellorship”!)
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
You're not wrong that it was started by a household appliance, you are considerably wrong in thinking that is a primary cause of a raging inferno in a tower block that was supposed to comply with building regs and be subdivided into small blocks with fireproof boundaries. There will always be small fires, dropped cigarette, shorting electrical appliance etc, they shouldn't result in a raging inferno. There's a very good Radio 4 podcast on Grenfell.
Thanks for the heads-up on the podcast.
I'm thinking around a header I'm putting together for the weekend, and the report goes very wide into all kind of things - so I'm thinking similarly.
"There will always be ... X" is never a reason to ignore anything imo. That's what they used to say about electrical kit within reach of a bath, trailing kettle wires in reach of toddlers, cooker off switches at the back so you had to reach over the pan fire to turn it off, electrical sockets near sinks, electric shocks before earth leakage trips were required, and all the rest.
Of the 7 or 8 fires I have seen quoted as precedent, all of them are in Social Housing blocks (HA or Council, including Worcester Park 2020), and all of them were started by your list of causes (electrical appliances or wiring, one candle on top of a TV, and one dropped cigarette).
I think both need to be addressed.
One point is that Council / HA housing is not regulated anything like as thoroughly as the Private Sector; they get to have a "Code of Practice" rather than prescribed legislation. For example, a Private LL is required to have a full professional electrical inspection every 5 years; a Council is merely required to "make sure it is safe" *. The difference is especially stark in my experience between University Halls of Residence and sometimes identical Private accommodation.
A second point is that by paying attention to "infernos" we ignore the far higher bar on the pareto chart, which is deaths in "small fires". It is as I see it the same as the effect that huge attention is garnered by rail or air crashes, but there is a conspiracy of silence about the 20 or 50 times as many people killed by crashes on our roads.
Hardly a conspiracy of silence, deaths in car accidents are often on the news, but complacency perhaps, given that our roads are among the safest, even for cyclists! Safer even than much-vaunted cycling paradise, NL.
ETA looking around parked cars finds a tremendous number of dents and scratches so if I were minister for road safety, I'd investigate what is causing all these low-level incidents in case it is the same cause for deaths, plus or minus a good helping of luck.
I'd call it an implicit conspiracy of silence about causes and responsibility, and a conspiracy of delusion.
It is in both the language and the reporting. Once you are triggered to spot eg "a car was in collision with a lamp post", "a car hit a pedestrian", "a Land Rover went through the wall of a house", "a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing was in collision with a van", "a car lost control" and so on, you see it everywhere. Vehicles suddenly get some weird agency for themselves, and the controlling human being is ignored. It's cultural and it's specific.
Comparing to cycling for a minute, how often have you seen "a bicycle/scooter collided with a grandmother"?
On reporting, causes are ignored. Here's one where a young woman was driving fast along country lanes at January at 0C in thick fog, and rolled her car for 50m and left it against a tree, leaving her hair grip lodged in her head. But the coverage is all about "don't wear hair grips when driving" - nothing at all about "don't drive like a reckless f*cking idiot".
The 19-year-old said the car skidded, hit a tree and flipped for 50m (164ft), coming to a stop on its roof. ... "I want to advise people to take out their hair claw clips before driving because I'm worried it could happen to someone else.
"I was really lucky, but I don't want anyone else to take the risk," she added.
"Why did the Grenfell Inquiry take so long to tell us what we know already? Ross Clark
Predictably enough, and not unreasonably, the 1700-page final report into the Grenfell disaster apportions the bulk of the blame with the companies who manufactured and sold the flammable cladding and insulation.
What has emerged from this inquiry is astonishing: you hardly need a degree in engineering to work out that it is not a good idea to wrap a tower block in combustible material. That manufacturers seem to have ‘deliberately concealed’ the risk that their products posed is something which is almost inevitably going to be picked over further in the courts. Why it has taken seven years to produce this report – thereby holding up possible criminal cases – is itself a scandal. As ever with our drawn-out public inquiries many of the guilty parties will no longer be around to face the music, at least not in the roles they held."
1 - AIUI (am I wrong?) it was started by a household appliance. I don't see that it has addressed for safety of such - but I have not read all 1700 pages.
You're not wrong that it was started by a household appliance, you are considerably wrong in thinking that is a primary cause of a raging inferno in a tower block that was supposed to comply with building regs and be subdivided into small blocks with fireproof boundaries. There will always be small fires, dropped cigarette, shorting electrical appliance etc, they shouldn't result in a raging inferno. There's a very good Radio 4 podcast on Grenfell.
Thanks for the heads-up on the podcast.
I'm thinking around a header I'm putting together for the weekend, and the report goes very wide into all kind of things - so I'm thinking similarly.
"There will always be ... X" is never a reason to ignore anything imo. That's what they used to say about electrical kit within reach of a bath, trailing kettle wires in reach of toddlers, cooker off switches at the back so you had to reach over the pan fire to turn it off, electrical sockets near sinks, electric shocks before earth leakage trips were required, and all the rest.
Of the 7 or 8 fires I have seen quoted as precedent, all of them are in Social Housing blocks (HA or Council, including Worcester Park 2020), and all of them were started by your list of causes (electrical appliances or wiring, one candle on top of a TV, and one dropped cigarette).
I think both need to be addressed.
One point is that Council / HA housing is not regulated anything like as thoroughly as the Private Sector; they get to have a "Code of Practice" rather than prescribed legislation. For example, a Private LL is required to have a full professional electrical inspection every 5 years; a Council is merely required to "make sure it is safe" *. The difference is especially stark in my experience between University Halls of Residence and sometimes identical Private accommodation.
A second point is that by paying attention to "infernos" we ignore the far higher bar on the pareto chart, which is deaths in "small fires". It is as I see it the same as the effect that huge attention is garnered by rail or air crashes, but there is a conspiracy of silence about the 20 or 50 times as many people killed by crashes on our roads.
Hardly a conspiracy of silence, deaths in car accidents are often on the news, but complacency perhaps, given that our roads are among the safest, even for cyclists! Safer even than much-vaunted cycling paradise, NL.
ETA looking around parked cars finds a tremendous number of dents and scratches so if I were minister for road safety, I'd investigate what is causing all these low-level incidents in case it is the same cause for deaths, plus or minus a good helping of luck.
The minor dents and scratches are due to cars being bigger than they used to be (most are now genuine 5-seaters) and roads and car park spaces no wider than before.
Returning to the electrical appliance issue, you are correct and there are regulations on them. Unfortunately ebay/amazon marketplace providing a route for direct sales from China etc of non-compliant goods and cuts to trading standards means that door is now wide open.
On RTA / KSIs, could be solved by more traffic police, speed cameras, HGV regulations to design out blind spots but with the first two it's apparently hugely unpopular to enforce traffic regulations.
Stricter enforcement of speed limits would be more acceptable if the speed limits were seen as reasonable. Much of the world allows 80/130k or more as its highest limits, and there's no real reason I can see why our motorways aren't capable of handling an 80 limit. Instead we get zones of 60mph "for air quality" and endless 50 roadworks zones where nobody is working. This evening I'll be driving up the M3 where there are two such zones, and the 50 limit is maintained in the gap between them.
The biggest crime is the Westway. It used to be bliss zipping along directly through Central London at 70mph (it is after all a three-lane dual carriageway) but now the speed limit is 30mph ffs.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
I doubt Putin cares so much about who is in the White House, what he cares about is us distrusting each other. The Dems' lawfare of the last four years play into his hands as much as anything Trump has done.
Trump: tried to overthrow the election result
Dems: passed some laws
I kinda think Trump plays into Putin's hands more on this one.
Trump: left office when his term expired Dems: Dragged him through the courts for four years on trumped-up(*) charges as a political tactic, thereby keeping him relevant.
(*) sorry, I know I really need a synonym for this.
"Steve Baker, former UK Brexit minister and leader of the European Research Group said in response to news of Michel Barnier’s appointment as France’s prime minister:
“I would wish him well, he is certainly going to need it as he will have his hands full dealing with the government.”
“Michel Barnier is undoubtedly a very polished and authoritative and very consummate politician,” he said.
“I am sure he will step into the role with great skill and flair but whether that is a good thing for UK relations with French is another thing,” he added."
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
I doubt Putin cares so much about who is in the White House, what he cares about is us distrusting each other. The Dems' lawfare of the last four years play into his hands as much as anything Trump has done.
Trump: tried to overthrow the election result
Dems: passed some laws
I kinda think Trump plays into Putin's hands more on this one.
Eh ? Trump has been, and is being prosecuted under existing laws.
"The Dem's lawfare" is just bollocks spin on behalf of an already convicted felon.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
I doubt Putin cares so much about who is in the White House, what he cares about is us distrusting each other. The Dems' lawfare of the last four years play into his hands as much as anything Trump has done.
Trump: tried to overthrow the election result
Dems: passed some laws
I kinda think Trump plays into Putin's hands more on this one.
Eh ? Trump has been, and is being prosecuted under existing laws.
"The Dem's lawfare" is just bollocks spin on behalf of an already convicted felon.
Having his opponents describe him as "a convicted felon" was the entire reason for the said charges.
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
Speaking of such arcane things, a question I cannot finsd an answer to, though people must have worked on it.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
The remarks were made during the Seoul Diplomacy Forum, an annual event hosted by the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. The forum, held under the theme "Continuity and Change in the U.S.-led International Order," brought together former foreign ministers, high-ranking officials and experts from both South Korea and abroad.
"If the U.S. were to withdraw its extended deterrence commitment and tell us to handle things on our own, South Korea would naturally need to consider the nuclear option," said Yoon Young-kwan, former foreign minister and chairman of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean think tank. "However, that situation has not yet arrived."
Yoon, who served under a liberal administration, added that the option of South Korea going nuclear would have a direct negative impact on the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
Nevertheless, Yoon noted that the option could possibly be explored if a Republican candidate wins the upcoming U.S. election, resulting in extreme isolationist policies...
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
I doubt Putin cares so much about who is in the White House, what he cares about is us distrusting each other. The Dems' lawfare of the last four years play into his hands as much as anything Trump has done.
Trump: tried to overthrow the election result
Dems: passed some laws
I kinda think Trump plays into Putin's hands more on this one.
Eh ? Trump has been, and is being prosecuted under existing laws.
"The Dem's lawfare" is just bollocks spin on behalf of an already convicted felon.
Having his opponents describe him as "a convicted felon" was the entire reason for the said charges.
Liz Cheney: "I don’t believe we have the luxury of writing in candidates names, particularly in swing states."
"I have thought deeply about this and because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump but I will be voting for Kamala Harris." https://x.com/anniekarni/status/1831452275799421394
As of August 2023, there are 805 hereditary peers: 30 dukes (including six royal dukes), 34 marquesses, 189 earls, 110 viscounts, and 442 barons (not counting subsidiary titles).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
No, we should replace the Lords thus
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard Right Honourable And Noble Bastard Right Honourable Bastard Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
Speaking of such arcane things, a question I cannot finsd an answer to, though people must have worked on it.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
On algarkirk's original question, I think the answer to "where do we end up" is a long way down one of those entertaining if ultimately pointless PB rabbit holes
I don’t exactly have a high opinion of conservatives but I will admit I do not expect “no we are literally getting paid by Russia” and “actually Hitler, yes that Hitler, was the good guy” to drop at the same time https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
I have a horrid feeling that one day, Hitler will be seen as the good guy, or at any rate, people will say there was nothing to choose between the Allies and the Axis.
I don’t exactly have a high opinion of conservatives but I will admit I do not expect “no we are literally getting paid by Russia” and “actually Hitler, yes that Hitler, was the good guy” to drop at the same time https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
I have a horrid feeling that one day, Hitler will be seen as the good guy, or at any rate, people will say there was nothing to choose between the Allies and the Axis.
David Irving would like to say hello.
I can remember Nick Griffin making the argument that if Japan hadn’t surrendered when they did the holocaust would have referred to Truman/Japan and not Hitler.
The remarks were made during the Seoul Diplomacy Forum, an annual event hosted by the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. The forum, held under the theme "Continuity and Change in the U.S.-led International Order," brought together former foreign ministers, high-ranking officials and experts from both South Korea and abroad.
"If the U.S. were to withdraw its extended deterrence commitment and tell us to handle things on our own, South Korea would naturally need to consider the nuclear option," said Yoon Young-kwan, former foreign minister and chairman of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean think tank. "However, that situation has not yet arrived."
Yoon, who served under a liberal administration, added that the option of South Korea going nuclear would have a direct negative impact on the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
Nevertheless, Yoon noted that the option could possibly be explored if a Republican candidate wins the upcoming U.S. election, resulting in extreme isolationist policies...
Translation - "We will have nuclear weapons within hours, if we feel that our security isn't guaranteed"
I don’t exactly have a high opinion of conservatives but I will admit I do not expect “no we are literally getting paid by Russia” and “actually Hitler, yes that Hitler, was the good guy” to drop at the same time https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
I have a horrid feeling that one day, Hitler will be seen as the good guy, or at any rate, people will say there was nothing to choose between the Allies and the Axis.
David Irving would like to say hello.
I can remember Nick Griffin making the argument that if Japan hadn’t surrendered when they did the holocaust would have referred to Truman/Japan and not Hitler.
Election coming up in British Columbia, and the interesting thing is that the Conservatives, who won just 1.9% at the previous election in 2020, are now leading the polls with as much as 44%. Canadian politics is always a bit weird with massive swings in short periods of time.
I don’t exactly have a high opinion of conservatives but I will admit I do not expect “no we are literally getting paid by Russia” and “actually Hitler, yes that Hitler, was the good guy” to drop at the same time https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
I have a horrid feeling that one day, Hitler will be seen as the good guy, or at any rate, people will say there was nothing to choose between the Allies and the Axis.
I've known people who advance that story about US vs Japan. And been surprised at the reaction they get, in places like China.
I don’t exactly have a high opinion of conservatives but I will admit I do not expect “no we are literally getting paid by Russia” and “actually Hitler, yes that Hitler, was the good guy” to drop at the same time https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
I have a horrid feeling that one day, Hitler will be seen as the good guy, or at any rate, people will say there was nothing to choose between the Allies and the Axis.
Of course, there is no way the CIA would ever fund internal enemies of regimes it dislikes, like, say, the early Taliban fighting the USSR. No way the west would be that hypocritical
Musk = Taliban. New angle from you?
Our hypocrisy on many of these issues is world clas. Cf our use of drones to slot anyone we dislike around the world and our shrieks about Salisbury
This passage from a website called the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe is an interesting one:
Authoritarian regimes use the designation of foreign agent to stigmatize and discredit organizations and individuals and to give the government the right to involve itself not only in an organization’s finances, but sometimes also in its activities. These laws usually involve onerous reporting requirements and noncompliance can result in steep fines, closure of an organization, or jail. Governments falsely claim that their laws are similar to transparency or lobbying laws in the United States and other democratic countries, which have been put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address propaganda and malign foreign influence.
So any laws on our side are put in place to make hidden foreign influence more transparent and address malign propaganda, but any laws on their side are to stigmatise and discredit (innocent) organisations and individuals. The hypocrisy is so flagrant as to be insulting.
So, once again, you side with Putin? It’s not hypocrisy to think what Putin does is bad and should be stopped.
The hypocrisy is the affronted overtones of moral horror at foreign governments interfering with us, by covert means, when the west does exactly the same all the time - indeed arguably worse. We have covertly done incredibly dodgy things with dodgy people
Funding the mujahideen who became the Taliban to fuck over the Soviet Union is the prime example but there are many more
It's ok to be a teeny bit concerned about the likes of Putin trying to get Trump back in the White House, though, isn't it?
Do you think it could blow up in Putin's face? It's a bit of a risk putting someone in the White House who is less keen than Biden on avoiding escalation.
I would have to defer to Vladimir's assessment of what's best for Vladimir. He's a little shrewdie after all. Famous for it.
But it probably boils down to him sussing Trump as that easiest of creatures to manipulate - an ignorant and vain old man.
Is he? It sounds like you have a high assessment of him. Is he smarter than Western politicians?
I'd put him top quartile on 'shrewdiness', I think? But then again I haven't met him. It's hard to have a sense of his soul just from the telly. You'd need to feel the handshake, gaze into the pupils, get in close and kind of smell the man.
I don’t exactly have a high opinion of conservatives but I will admit I do not expect “no we are literally getting paid by Russia” and “actually Hitler, yes that Hitler, was the good guy” to drop at the same time https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
I have a horrid feeling that one day, Hitler will be seen as the good guy, or at any rate, people will say there was nothing to choose between the Allies and the Axis.
David Irving would like to say hello.
I can remember Nick Griffin making the argument that if Japan hadn’t surrendered when they did the holocaust would have referred to Truman/Japan and not Hitler.
I've certainly encountered people who argue that Japan were the wronged party, and that the US was motivated to fight them by racism.
As you say, you're likely to get an angry response across East Asia if you advance that argument.
Comments
He's possibly unconsciously embarrassed for having been a Pool fan.
We could have done that to this murdering bastard. Then chucked him out. From that report it seems a dentist actually TOLD the UKG he was older than he claimed
They ignored the dentist. In he came
What you definitely can't do is take the apsolute numbers from it and compare it to the numbers from elsewhere, unless those numbers are compiled on the same basis (not police data or the like).
Given that a lot of people who claim to have been raped for don't also summon the police, the BCS rape data will be particularly hard to compare meaningfully with data produced in other countries.
I've know him many years. I recall his reaction to the Pristina Incident. For those who don't remember, Russian forces tried to block NATO from the airport in the aftermath of the Kosovo War, to protect their ally Serbia.
The Russian paratroops at the airport were completely surrounded. The Russian government talked of flying in support to them. The former East Blok countries said they wouldn't allow flights over their territory. The Russians said they would send them anyway. A Czech general was quoted as telling the Russians that he remembered 68 and would really welcome shooting down a Russian military flight.
My Russian friend couldn't understand the Czech general's attitude - how could they forget their Russian masters so quickly?
That's the most establishment of establishment choices for an anti-establishment vote.
It would be like our last election having a massive Reform and Corbynite vote and then Olly Robins walzing in as PM.
https://thenewsglobe.net/?p=7156 CONVICTED MURDERER SET FREE BY TRUMP STRANGLES HIS WIFE AFTER RELEASE: REPORT
There are dozens of different ways in which they might show themselves to be an improvement in their predecessor.
I can't yet work out if they will or not.
As to joined up thinking about checking finger prints.... Ha Ha. For many years, background checks in this country didn't bother looking aboard. So you could pass an enhanced check to work with children, *so long as you hadn't committed your crimes in this country*.
In the last few years we overtook Sweden to become the rape capital of Europe, it seems. Is this a statistical anomaly or is this a real phenomenon?
I genuinely don’t know but the mere possibility is disquieting
I’m going to find out if young kosovans really are called “toniblair”
Consider - between 1865 and 1965, there were no prosecutions for murder of black people by white people in Mississippi, USA. What does that tell us about Mississippi?
House of Lords reform to remove hereditary peers in 18 months
Ministers will fast-track legislation to dismiss all 92 hereditary peers, of which 45 are Conservatives
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/house-of-lords-reform-to-remove-hereditary-peers-in-18-months-2vg20k8h7
Just need to get rid of the rest of the unelected mob.
There had been suggestions that two hereditary peers would survive the purge because they carry out ceremonial roles in the Lords on behalf of the monarch: The Earl Marshal, a role held by the dukes of Norfolk since 1672, which involves overseeing the state opening of parliament as well as royal events such as funerals and coronations; and the Lord Great Chamberlain, the sovereign’s representative in parliament, a position that rotates between three families.
But government sources said a deal had been struck following discussions with Buckingham Palace that would allow the ceremonial elements of the roles to continue without granting their holders the right to sit and vote in the Lords.
This is about being PM of France.
They're the only ones with class in there.
We need the Duke of Wellington.
Remember the UK held all the cards and Barnier got a brilliant deal for the EU.
But the hereditary peers had to go. Overdue
I’d scrap the whole house and start again with a new House of Lords organised on a federal basis from the 4 home nations
If the EU had a senate made up of the progeny of past politicians you’d be shitting your keks over it.
Hopefully we can banish the bishops at the same time for similar reasons (also that they're all twats).
We should have them all back in the Lords.
Proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-elections_to_the_House_of_Lords#2015
But it probably boils down to him sussing Trump as that easiest of creatures to manipulate - an ignorant and vain old man.
The House of Bastards. The 100 closest *illegitimate* descendents of Charles II
Titles would work in reverse of rank - the most complex for the most junior. So, ascending
Right Honourable And Most Noble Bastard
Right Honourable And Noble Bastard
Right Honourable Bastard
Right Bastard
This would be simple, cheap, and effective
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/1831395490132553820
The truth, as we all know, is the prisons are full because the useless Conservatives, in Government, talked tough on crime and imposed even more legislation restricting our civil liberties but did the sum total of sod-all to improve prison capacity or recruit prison officers.
They failed, not Labour. Labour are left, as usual, to pick up the pieces.
And somebody on here pines for the return of Rishi Sunak - yeah, right.
Interesting.
Very interesting.
https://x.com/opinonhaver/status/1831569748565619199
I shall be sorry to see the remaining hereditaries go, and hope provision will be made for some of them on a 'life peerage' basis.
I would far rather get rid of some of the current appointed ones.
If you go from either QE II or Charles III (it's all the same in this case) and trace up the direct maternal line (ie QU II, then Queen Mother, then her mother etc) how far can you get, and where do you end up?
On RTA / KSIs, could be solved by more traffic police, speed cameras, HGV regulations to design out blind spots but with the first two it's apparently hugely unpopular to enforce traffic regulations.
“I would wish him well, he is certainly going to need it as he will have his hands full dealing with the government.”
“Michel Barnier is undoubtedly a very polished and authoritative and very consummate politician,” he said.
“I am sure he will step into the role with great skill and flair but whether that is a good thing for UK relations with French is another thing,” he added."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/sep/05/michel-barnier-named-as-frances-new-prime-minister-europe-live
But, presumably, for the good Christians* amongst us, the answer is you eventually get to Eve?
*I, not being one, cannot comment
Macron has been walloped and the Parliament is bitterly divided between hard right and mad left
Nothing will get done
Dems: passed some laws
I kinda think Trump plays into Putin's hands more on this one.
EDIT: And MG's mum was Anne Newland.
On foreign policy I think Macron still has significant influence, whatever the domestic situation. As did Sarkozy when he was already deeply unpopular in France. The absence of a big hitter in the German chancellorship helps.
(I had to correct the autocorrect on “big hitter in the German chancellorship”!)
Dems: Dragged him through the courts for four years on trumped-up(*) charges as a political tactic, thereby keeping him relevant.
(*) sorry, I know I really need a synonym for this.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college
Trump has been, and is being prosecuted under existing laws.
"The Dem's lawfare" is just bollocks spin on behalf of an already convicted felon.
Ex-foreign ministers say S. Korea's nuclear armament not realistic option
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/09/205_381966.html
...Former top diplomats said Thursday that the idea of South Korea acquiring its own nuclear weapons is not a realistic option, despite uncertainties in the geopolitical landscape.
The remarks were made during the Seoul Diplomacy Forum, an annual event hosted by the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. The forum, held under the theme "Continuity and Change in the U.S.-led International Order," brought together former foreign ministers, high-ranking officials and experts from both South Korea and abroad.
"If the U.S. were to withdraw its extended deterrence commitment and tell us to handle things on our own, South Korea would naturally need to consider the nuclear option," said Yoon Young-kwan, former foreign minister and chairman of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean think tank. "However, that situation has not yet arrived."
Yoon, who served under a liberal administration, added that the option of South Korea going nuclear would have a direct negative impact on the South Korea-U.S. alliance.
Nevertheless, Yoon noted that the option could possibly be explored if a Republican candidate wins the upcoming U.S. election, resulting in extreme isolationist policies...
"I have thought deeply about this and because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump but I will be voting for Kamala Harris."
https://x.com/anniekarni/status/1831452275799421394
"Gunshots heard in Munich during shootout near Israeli consulate
Guardian News"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRjIFQjusBY
I can remember Nick Griffin making the argument that if Japan hadn’t surrendered when they did the holocaust would have referred to Truman/Japan and not Hitler.
Call this the Ukrainian Lesson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_British_Columbia_general_election#Opinion_polls
Starmer is following in the legacy of Thatcher and Cameron.
The six British prime ministers who have restricted arms sales to Israel
Rather than taking the country into uncharted territory, Labour's move brings the UK closer to previous policy
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/british-prime-ministers-who-have-restricted-arms-sales-israel
As you say, you're likely to get an angry response across East Asia if you advance that argument.