Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Your afternoon watch – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,036
    FPT: I think solar power is especially appropriate for places like northern Alaska and Canada's Northwest Territories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territories
    /sarc

    Which brings me to a small suggestion: The UK should build SMRs and export them to places where they are especially needed. I think the UK, like the US, could build a SMR within a year, and could build follow-ons for export within five years.

    With the right leadership in your government and companies, of course.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    BOLD BLOCK CAPS
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cdje9nz7ll1o

    Watch: Can BBC reporter's AI clone fool his colleagues?

    01:30
    Watch: Can BBC reporter's AI clone fool his colleagues?

    Companies are being warned about the increasing use of AI to carry out so-called CEO Fraud.

    More victims are coming forward with their stories of being targeted using generative AI techniques, and one case in Hong Kong reportedly saw an AI clone used during a video meeting to trick staff into losing $25m.

    It's not even as good as Meta's new snap/insta avatars. I long for the day when I can send my avatar to sit through another dreadful meeting and give me a summary of all the reasons I didn't need to attend.

    Douglas Adams was way ahead of all this. I wish he was still around to befuddle us even more.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    Apols if this was covered earlier (being such major news and all) :

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg4qv64qk92o

    New Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay promises to 'change' party

    Newly-elected Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay has said his party will change in order to "win back public trust".

    The former journalist comfortably defeated his Scottish Parliament colleagues Murdo Fraser and Meghan Gallacher in a ballot of party members.

    The contest followed the resignation of Douglas Ross, who announced mid-way through the general election campaign that he was standing down as Scottish leader.

    Findlay said he would seek to represent those who are "scunnered" with the "fringe obsessions of the Scottish Parliament" and feel that politicians do not understand the concerns of ordinary voters.

    ---

    Ordinary voters, scunnered, fringe obsessions. He's already a sub-par LLM.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,610
    edited September 27

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,880
    edited September 27

    SteveS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Tolls on the new Silvertown Tunnel are due come into force next year, alongside new tolls on the existing nearby Blackwall Tunnel.

    It could cost cars and small vans £4 per trip in peak hours or £1.50 off peak. There would be a reduction for some drivers, for example those on low incomes.

    Bexley councillor Richard Diment says the tolls will create a "two-tier London", adding: "In central and western London, where there are far more crossings, no tolls are charged. It will make south-east London even more isolated than it is already."

    He is particularly against the decision to toll Blackwall tunnel, "which has had no toll on it since it opened in the 1890s".

    "Over here in the east, where we have relatively few river crossings, people are going to have to pay.

    "It creates a two-tier London."


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9j0m7gkvdo

    It's a two tier London already, because the queues for the Blackwall tunnel make it almost unusable today already.

    If the tolls reduce the wait time, it makes South East London more attractive, not less.
    But how do you get across the river?
    Rotherhithe tunnel. A miracle of engineering.
    Which, apparently, you can walk through. I never tried that.
    I'd take care if you try.

    I'm not confident I would survive cycling through it. It is 1500m, and my long dormant asthma condition might be triggered.

    People who have done it say that breathing is difficult with all the fumes. The motorist behaviour is as poisonous as the fumes.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/londoncycling/comments/84bj8g/why_nobody_cycles_through_the_rotherhithe_tunnel/
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,036
    Less well-known than it should be: Obama's two permanent energy secretaries both believe nuclear power should be a part the US energy mix.

    Stephen Chu and Ernest Moriz have decent credentials, in my opinion:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz

    (There was also an interim secretary wo, as far as I know, agreed with them.)
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000670796803

    Great podcast on the bizarre hypocrisy around FROCKGATE.

    Keeping nine (at least) of the fourth estate employed. Remarkable.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,668

    Leon said:

    Starmer has been given THIRTY TWO THOUSAND POUNDS to spend on... clothes

    Is that even possible? Once you've got two Savile Row suits and two pairs of Lobbs, you've still got about £20k left

    You should see my wardrobe.
    Which, along with your new-iPhone-a-year addiction, makes me think that you have far, far more money than sense. ;)
    Is the wardrobe made of a particularly rare wood?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    I'm sure the people of Sudan and Myanmar will be delighted by this illumination of global awareness by the next US president.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    WANKER
    Nice. Thanks.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,835
    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    Please tell me she's finnish.
  • Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer has been given THIRTY TWO THOUSAND POUNDS to spend on... clothes

    Is that even possible? Once you've got two Savile Row suits and two pairs of Lobbs, you've still got about £20k left

    You should see my wardrobe.
    I know you're a dapper man, but £32k dapper is more like Elton John buying mink coats dapper

    Seriously. This is getting surreal
    That wouldn't touch the sides for Elton John, even now. Don't ask me how I know.

    Back in 2000 he was spending half of that per month on flowers:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elton-john-spent-pound-40m-in-20-months-622287.html
    'Flowers'. That good old difficult-to-query bill item on the entertainment bill.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,379
    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    WHICH ONES?
  • REALLY dumb Trump dumbassery -

    Idaho Statesman (via Seattle Times) - Does Trump want to turn ‘giant faucet’ to send Columbia River water to CA? What he said

    The Columbia River could be the answer to California’s water problems, former President Donald Trump seemed to say at a news conference near Los Angeles.

    “I’m going to give you more water than almost anyone has,” he said. There would be plenty of water for lawns at big houses in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, for farmers and to dampen the hills where forest fires burn, he said.

    He started talking about water when he was asked a question about California wildfires raging nearby, an hour into a press conference at one of his golf courses earlier this month.

    “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the Northwest, the snow caps and Canada,” he said.

    All it would take is turning “essentially a very large faucet,” he said.

    “It takes one day to turn it, it’s massive,” he said. “It’s as big as a wall, as that building right there behind you.” . . . .

    . . . Canadian news media were not impressed.

    The Columbia River flows from Canada south into Washington, where it is joined by water from the Snake River in Eastern Washington near the Tri-Cities to flow into the Pacific Ocean.

    The Toronto Star said Trump’s promise “touches on deep-seated anxieties about our southern neighbors muscling their way into our water supply.”

    Canada and the United States currently are finalizing a proposal to modernize the 1964 Columbia River Treaty, which has governed hydropower operations and management of flood risks on both sides of the international border. . . .

    SSI - The notion of diverting water from the Columbia River to feed the thirst of California agriculture and development is an old one. AND a surefire way to piss off folks across the Pacific Northwest on both sides of the international border.

    Am hoping that Trump's latest BS is broadcast freely among MAGA-minded farmers & others in eastern Washington, whose indivual livelihoods and regional economy are based on irrigation by water from the . . . wait for it . . . Columbia River.

    I am not a geographer so I am rather confused how this would hurt the Canadians.

    If water flows downstream then how does diverting the water downstream affect what happens upstream? Surely its already flowed down before its affected so what difference does it make?

    Sure I'm missing something but could someone please explain that? Water isn't flowing upstream into the Canadian Rockies, its flowing down from there.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987

    Less well-known than it should be: Obama's two permanent energy secretaries both believe nuclear power should be a part the US energy mix.

    Stephen Chu and Ernest Moriz have decent credentials, in my opinion:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz

    (There was also an interim secretary wo, as far as I know, agreed with them.)

    I saw a dozen or so US banks saying they were open to financing new nuclear this week. Not sure if it's on the back of the MS "not-three-mile-island" thing or not.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,173
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    Here are the details.

    Trump: I believe I will be able to make a deal between Putin and Zelenskyy quite quickly.

    Reporter: What does that look like?

    Trump: I don't want to tell you what that looks like.

    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1839417761195589679
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    edited September 27

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    What on Earth are you droning on about now?

    Politicians of all parties receive donations and gifts from a variety of donors for a variety of purposes. This has been the case for decades.

    Were you unaware of this previously?
  • carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    Please tell me she's finnish.
    More that some people are desperate for Starmer to be finnished.
  • ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    I'm sure the people of Sudan and Myanmar will be delighted by this illumination of global awareness by the next US president.
    [Barbara Castle voice] Why is a young man like you concerned with Gaza? What about Sudan? What about Burma?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,835
    edited September 27

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    Please tell me she's finnish.
    More that some people are desperate for Starmer to be finnished.
    A quick glance at twitter tells me Isabel Oakeshott was the presenter spreading the rumours. So probably file under bullshit.
  • SteveS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Tolls on the new Silvertown Tunnel are due come into force next year, alongside new tolls on the existing nearby Blackwall Tunnel.

    It could cost cars and small vans £4 per trip in peak hours or £1.50 off peak. There would be a reduction for some drivers, for example those on low incomes.

    Bexley councillor Richard Diment says the tolls will create a "two-tier London", adding: "In central and western London, where there are far more crossings, no tolls are charged. It will make south-east London even more isolated than it is already."

    He is particularly against the decision to toll Blackwall tunnel, "which has had no toll on it since it opened in the 1890s".

    "Over here in the east, where we have relatively few river crossings, people are going to have to pay.

    "It creates a two-tier London."


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9j0m7gkvdo

    It's a two tier London already, because the queues for the Blackwall tunnel make it almost unusable today already.

    If the tolls reduce the wait time, it makes South East London more attractive, not less.
    But how do you get across the river?
    Rotherhithe tunnel. A miracle of engineering.
    Which, apparently, you can walk through. I never tried that.
    You can also walk under the Thames at Greenwich, and at Woolwich.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,985

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
    I explicitly did not describe any of this tattle, for that precise reason, nor shall I do so
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807

    carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    Please tell me she's finnish.
    More that some people are desperate for Starmer to be finnished.
    I'm not - I'd like him to continue the way he's going for a year or two.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,435

    SteveS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Tolls on the new Silvertown Tunnel are due come into force next year, alongside new tolls on the existing nearby Blackwall Tunnel.

    It could cost cars and small vans £4 per trip in peak hours or £1.50 off peak. There would be a reduction for some drivers, for example those on low incomes.

    Bexley councillor Richard Diment says the tolls will create a "two-tier London", adding: "In central and western London, where there are far more crossings, no tolls are charged. It will make south-east London even more isolated than it is already."

    He is particularly against the decision to toll Blackwall tunnel, "which has had no toll on it since it opened in the 1890s".

    "Over here in the east, where we have relatively few river crossings, people are going to have to pay.

    "It creates a two-tier London."


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9j0m7gkvdo

    It's a two tier London already, because the queues for the Blackwall tunnel make it almost unusable today already.

    If the tolls reduce the wait time, it makes South East London more attractive, not less.
    But how do you get across the river?
    Rotherhithe tunnel. A miracle of engineering.
    Which, apparently, you can walk through. I never tried that.
    You can also walk under the Thames at Greenwich, and at Woolwich.
    I've done the Woolwich tunnel once. The Greenwich one many, many times (I used to live on the Isle of Dogs). I love the Greenwich Foot Tunnel.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    edited September 27

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    I'm sure the people of Sudan and Myanmar will be delighted by this illumination of global awareness by the next US president.
    [Barbara Castle voice] Why is a young man like you concerned with Gaza? What about Sudan? What about Burma?
    You'll have to explain the reference, sorry. (I know who she is, but I don't get the sentence)
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    WHICH ONES?
    Apparently the owls are not what they seem.

    I shall say no more.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
    I explicitly did not describe any of this tattle, for that precise reason, nor shall I do so
    STFU then.
  • Apologies if other people have posted this before me.

    There has been something of a furore around Sir Keir Starmer receiving free tickets for football matches but plenty of Tory ministers enjoyed similar largesse while they were in power.

    Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie attended the men’s Euro 2020 semi-final and final in July 2021, along with several other ministers, while Liz Truss and Nadine Dorries were pictured at the women’s Euro final a year later.

    MPs have to declare such freebies but since 2015 government ministers have not had to register anything they receive “in their ministerial capacity”.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/sport-notebook-no-saudi-moonlighting-for-referee-michael-oliver-7ddpx6fcb
  • ohnotnow said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    I'm sure the people of Sudan and Myanmar will be delighted by this illumination of global awareness by the next US president.
    [Barbara Castle voice] Why is a young man like you concerned with Gaza? What about Sudan? What about Burma?
    You'll have to explain the reference, sorry. (I know who she is, but I don't get the sentence)
    She said to Paul Rose MP, who went on a fact-finding mission to NI, just as the Civil Rights movement was starting:

    "Why is a young man like you concerned with Northern Ireland? What about Vietnam? What about Rhodesia?"

    Rose replied: "You'll see when they start shooting one another."
  • Jonathan said:

    Why do I think that Van Gogh might have approved of the protests?

    He would certainly be mystified by the hushed religiosity attached to his (very well protected) paintings by the sort of folk who would have despised him and never have put their hands in their pockets 140 years ago.
  • Apologies if other people have posted this before me.

    There has been something of a furore around Sir Keir Starmer receiving free tickets for football matches but plenty of Tory ministers enjoyed similar largesse while they were in power.

    Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie attended the men’s Euro 2020 semi-final and final in July 2021, along with several other ministers, while Liz Truss and Nadine Dorries were pictured at the women’s Euro final a year later.

    MPs have to declare such freebies but since 2015 government ministers have not had to register anything they receive “in their ministerial capacity”.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/sport-notebook-no-saudi-moonlighting-for-referee-michael-oliver-7ddpx6fcb

    OK, so Labour have every right to be as sleazy as the Tories?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987

    ohnotnow said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    I'm sure the people of Sudan and Myanmar will be delighted by this illumination of global awareness by the next US president.
    [Barbara Castle voice] Why is a young man like you concerned with Gaza? What about Sudan? What about Burma?
    You'll have to explain the reference, sorry. (I know who she is, but I don't get the sentence)
    She said to Paul Rose MP, who went on a fact-finding mission to NI, just as the Civil Rights movement was starting:

    "Why is a young man like you concerned with Northern Ireland? What about Vietnam? What about Rhodesia?"

    Rose replied: "You'll see when they start shooting one another."
    Ok. I'm still lost. But thank you for explaining the reference.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,990
    Leon said:

    Fucksake

    "Activists throw soup on Van Gogh painting again"

    This is for all those who think the punishment today was "too harsh"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c243v5m0r0lo

    This needs deterring, bigly

    Indeed it was also consumerist of them as they used heinz rather than the own brand cheapest soup,,,,trust fund babies for you
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807

    ohnotnow said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    I'm sure the people of Sudan and Myanmar will be delighted by this illumination of global awareness by the next US president.
    [Barbara Castle voice] Why is a young man like you concerned with Gaza? What about Sudan? What about Burma?
    You'll have to explain the reference, sorry. (I know who she is, but I don't get the sentence)
    She said to Paul Rose MP, who went on a fact-finding mission to NI, just as the Civil Rights movement was starting:

    "Why is a young man like you concerned with Northern Ireland? What about Vietnam? What about Rhodesia?"

    Rose replied: "You'll see when they start shooting one another."
    Thankfully Rhodesia and Vietnam never did start shooting at each other.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
    I explicitly did not describe any of this tattle, for that precise reason, nor shall I do so
    STFU then.
    The Starmerites are now claiming that Sir Kir Royale’s autocue was ‘sabotaged’ by the hard left, leading to his ‘sausages’ gaffe

    That would explain his making such a peculiar mistake

    So, you can ask me to STFU but the fact is Labour themselves are stoking this story with their own infighting

    What a shower of clowns. lol
  • stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
  • ohnotnow said:

    ohnotnow said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Israel didn’t give any warning and civilians in the area bombed wouldn’t necessarily know who was staying in the area . The IDF went ahead and blew up 6 buildings .

    The Israeli government is fast becoming one of the most loathed on the planet . The USA will do bugger all especially with an election coming.

    Trump would dump Zelensky and push for a peace deal in Ukraine but shift arms to Netanyahu, Harris would push for a peace deal in Gaza and Lebanon but shift more arms to Zelensky. The election outcome matters globally
    I'm sure the people of Sudan and Myanmar will be delighted by this illumination of global awareness by the next US president.
    [Barbara Castle voice] Why is a young man like you concerned with Gaza? What about Sudan? What about Burma?
    You'll have to explain the reference, sorry. (I know who she is, but I don't get the sentence)
    She said to Paul Rose MP, who went on a fact-finding mission to NI, just as the Civil Rights movement was starting:

    "Why is a young man like you concerned with Northern Ireland? What about Vietnam? What about Rhodesia?"

    Rose replied: "You'll see when they start shooting one another."
    Thankfully Rhodesia and Vietnam never did start shooting at each other.
    Arf!
  • Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    What on Earth are you droning on about now?

    Politicians of all parties receive donations and gifts from a variety of donors for a variety of purposes. This has been the case for decades.

    Were you unaware of this previously?
    At times I really wonder if you even read the posts before responding

    In answer to your last sentence read my opening one and what do you disagree with in the rest of the post?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
    I explicitly did not describe any of this tattle, for that precise reason, nor shall I do so
    STFU then.
    The Starmerites are now claiming that Sir Kir Royale’s autocue was ‘sabotaged’ by the hard left, leading to his ‘sausages’ gaffe

    That would explain his making such a peculiar mistake

    So, you can ask me to STFU but the fact is Labour themselves are stoking this story with their own infighting

    What a shower of clowns. lol
    ….
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,435

    Apologies if other people have posted this before me.

    There has been something of a furore around Sir Keir Starmer receiving free tickets for football matches but plenty of Tory ministers enjoyed similar largesse while they were in power.

    Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie attended the men’s Euro 2020 semi-final and final in July 2021, along with several other ministers, while Liz Truss and Nadine Dorries were pictured at the women’s Euro final a year later.

    MPs have to declare such freebies but since 2015 government ministers have not had to register anything they receive “in their ministerial capacity”.


    https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/sport-notebook-no-saudi-moonlighting-for-referee-michael-oliver-7ddpx6fcb

    The odorous mess around Starmer and freebies is far wider, and greater, than the football tickets. And also, he was not a government minister, and the tickets were not given in a ministerial capacity.
  • ohnotnow said:

    Apols if this was covered earlier (being such major news and all) :

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg4qv64qk92o

    New Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay promises to 'change' party

    Newly-elected Scottish Conservative leader Russell Findlay has said his party will change in order to "win back public trust".

    The former journalist comfortably defeated his Scottish Parliament colleagues Murdo Fraser and Meghan Gallacher in a ballot of party members.

    The contest followed the resignation of Douglas Ross, who announced mid-way through the general election campaign that he was standing down as Scottish leader.

    Findlay said he would seek to represent those who are "scunnered" with the "fringe obsessions of the Scottish Parliament" and feel that politicians do not understand the concerns of ordinary voters.

    ---

    Ordinary voters, scunnered, fringe obsessions. He's already a sub-par LLM.

    Scunnered is such a wonderful word
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Jonathan said:

    Why do I think that Van Gogh might have approved of the protests?

    He would certainly be mystified by the hushed religiosity attached to his (very well protected) paintings by the sort of folk who would have despised him and never have put their hands in their pockets 140 years ago.
    No one put their hands in their pockets 140 years ago. It was his sister, who after his death, pushed Van Gogh’s paintings to fame.

    Hence - https://youtu.be/ubTJI_UphPk?si=YwrTGP9PsrNQKL4Y
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,112
    Projection or anti-semitism?, why not both?


  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,990
    Leon said:

    I must have Slow Processing Disorder because I am finding it hard to work out how Sir Sheer Wanker spent £32,000 on clothes

    lacy underwear from victoria's secrets doesn't come cheap
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    All getting A BIT TETCHY in the Middle East
  • carnforth said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    Please tell me she's finnish.
    More that some people are desperate for Starmer to be finnished.
    I'm not - I'd like him to continue the way he's going for a year or two.
    I expect most conservative/ reform supporters are very content with him remaining in office
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807
    Leon said:

    All getting A BIT TETCHY in the Middle East

    Perhaps they should all just RELEASE THEIR SAUSAGES as Sir Keir wisely suggested.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,268
    edited September 27
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
    I explicitly did not describe any of this tattle, for that precise reason, nor shall I do so
    STFU then.
    The Starmerites are now claiming that Sir Kir Royale’s autocue was ‘sabotaged’ by the hard left, leading to his ‘sausages’ gaffe

    That would explain his making such a peculiar mistake

    So, you can ask me to STFU but the fact is Labour themselves are stoking this story with their own infighting

    What a shower of clowns. lol
    He regularly makes verbal slip-ups. It might even be some kind of tell.

    In his interview about grift-gate he said that his "ston" needed peace to revise for his "jussas".
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,985
    edited September 27

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
    What I find interesting is just as Clarke's subsequent successes as Chancellor failed to erase the public memory of the events of 16th September 1992 which, though paradoxically good for the economy in the longer term, created the perception of a Government which had lost control of the situation, the relative success of Sunak and Hunt in the period after the former became Prime Minister failed to erase the disaster of Truss from the public consciousness.

    Go further back and arguably Callaghan's Government never recovered from Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF - Wilson's Government never really got over devaluation in 1967 and I'd even argue Attlee's Government never recovered from the Shinwell Winter of 1946-47.

    In essence, single events can create powerful perceptions in the public which are almost impossible to shift. This is Starmer's big problem now - the image of a "grifter" has been seared into the public consciousness and whatever he and his Government achieve in the next 3-4 years, shaking that perception is going to be incredibly hard and will act as a drag on Labour electorally.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,682
    nico679 said:

    The IDF wipe out 6 buildings to get a Hezbollah leader .

    Having slaughtered tens of thousands in Gaza they’re moving onto to start slaughtering thousands in the Lebanon .

    Netanyahu should be rotting in a jail cell not swanning around without a care in the world .

    I do not think what the Israelis are doing is right, on so many levels. But you need to check why they are hitting Hezbollah. On Oct 8th Hezbollah attacked Israel, forcing the removal of 60,000 people from their homes. That’s why.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
    I explicitly did not describe any of this tattle, for that precise reason, nor shall I do so
    STFU then.
    The Starmerites are now claiming that Sir Kir Royale’s autocue was ‘sabotaged’ by the hard left, leading to his ‘sausages’ gaffe

    That would explain his making such a peculiar mistake

    So, you can ask me to STFU but the fact is Labour themselves are stoking this story with their own infighting

    What a shower of clowns. lol
    He regularly makes verbal slip-ups. It might even be some kind of tell.

    In his interview about grift-gate he said that his "ston" needed peace to revise for his "jussas".
    The simplest explanations are sometimes the best.
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
    What I find interesting was just as Clarke's subsequent successes as Chancellor failed to erase the public memory of the events of 16th September 1992 which, though paradoxically good for the economy in the longer term, created the perception of a Government which had lost control of the situation, the relative success of Sunak and Hunt in the period after the former became Prime Minister failed to erase the disaster of Truss from the public consciousness.

    Go further back and arguably Callaghan's Government never recovered from Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF - Wilson's Government never really got over devaluation in 1967 and I'd even argue Attlee's Government never recovered from the Shinwell Winter of 1946-47.

    In essence, single events can create powerful perceptions in the public which are almost impossible to shift. This is Starmer's big problem now - the image of a "grifter" has been seared into the public consciousness and whatever he and his Government achieve in the next 3-4 years, shaking that perception is going to be incredibly hard and will act as a drag on Labour electorally.
    Again we are very much on the same page
  • Jonathan said:

    Why do I think that Van Gogh might have approved of the protests?

    He would certainly be mystified by the hushed religiosity attached to his (very well protected) paintings by the sort of folk who would have despised him and never have put their hands in their pockets 140 years ago.
    No one put their hands in their pockets 140 years ago. It was his sister, who after his death, pushed Van Gogh’s paintings to fame.

    Hence - https://youtu.be/ubTJI_UphPk?si=YwrTGP9PsrNQKL4Y
    Precisely, the bourgeois philistines of yesteryear have been re-educated to be outraged by different stuff.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,379
    Foxy said:

    Projection or anti-semitism?, why not both?


    Buying a dissemination medium to propagate one's worldview? Who would possibly do that? :)
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,978
    edited September 27
    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    I saw it on Twitter.

    Poor form really. All nudge nudge, innuendo.

    One journo has already paid out to a lady after untrue allegations re her and SKS.

    Not sure we want to go there.
  • Leon said:

    All getting A BIT TETCHY in the Middle East

    Perhaps they should all just RELEASE THEIR SAUSAGES as Sir Keir wisely suggested.
    The B of the Banger!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    mwadams said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer has been given THIRTY TWO THOUSAND POUNDS to spend on... clothes

    Is that even possible? Once you've got two Savile Row suits and two pairs of Lobbs, you've still got about £20k left

    You should see my wardrobe.
    Which, along with your new-iPhone-a-year addiction, makes me think that you have far, far more money than sense. ;)
    Is the wardrobe made of a particularly rare wood?
    I’ve just solved the clothing mystery.

    1) Corbyn told Starmer to do something that would reach out to the Palestinian people.
    2) Starmer bought some suits at John Philips

    https://youtu.be/7KyDkH1yUeE?si=OErACY2fYcMKpTLm
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,978
    Leon said:

    All getting A BIT TETCHY in the Middle East

    Biden has been ineffective in trying to rein in Israel. He really is a lame duck and I’d guess Israel sees the time between now and Jan 6th as a window of opportunity.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,895
    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
    What I find interesting is just as Clarke's subsequent successes as Chancellor failed to erase the public memory of the events of 16th September 1992 which, though paradoxically good for the economy in the longer term, created the perception of a Government which had lost control of the situation, the relative success of Sunak and Hunt in the period after the former became Prime Minister failed to erase the disaster of Truss from the public consciousness.

    Go further back and arguably Callaghan's Government never recovered from Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF - Wilson's Government never really got over devaluation in 1967 and I'd even argue Attlee's Government never recovered from the Shinwell Winter of 1946-47.

    In essence, single events can create powerful perceptions in the public which are almost impossible to shift. This is Starmer's big problem now - the image of a "grifter" has been seared into the public consciousness and whatever he and his Government achieve in the next 3-4 years, shaking that perception is going to be incredibly hard and will act as a drag on Labour electorally.
    Everything that now happens will be viewed through the lense of these stories. You can see that in the jokes about the return of the sausages, that reference his expensive glasses. So it will get reinforced again, and again.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Jonathan said:

    Why do I think that Van Gogh might have approved of the protests?

    He would certainly be mystified by the hushed religiosity attached to his (very well protected) paintings by the sort of folk who would have despised him and never have put their hands in their pockets 140 years ago.
    No one put their hands in their pockets 140 years ago. It was his sister, who after his death, pushed Van Gogh’s paintings to fame.

    Hence - https://youtu.be/ubTJI_UphPk?si=YwrTGP9PsrNQKL4Y
    Precisely, the bourgeois philistines of yesteryear have been re-educated to be outraged by different stuff.
    I’m trying to recall the art dealer who ramped the early impressionists with all the moral acuity of a crypto bro.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    ohnotnow said:

    Less well-known than it should be: Obama's two permanent energy secretaries both believe nuclear power should be a part the US energy mix.

    Stephen Chu and Ernest Moriz have decent credentials, in my opinion:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz

    (There was also an interim secretary wo, as far as I know, agreed with them.)

    I saw a dozen or so US banks saying they were open to financing new nuclear this week. Not sure if it's on the back of the MS "not-three-mile-island" thing or not.
    Here is a full list of nuclear power plants that have been built without government subsidy:
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,934
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TalkTV has gone there

    To... THE RUMOURS

    And anyone who repeats those rumours will be banned, sorry but we have to protect OGH.

    A shadow minister has received an apology and a substantial sum from a prominent journalist over a tweet that falsely suggested she had a “secret adulterous relationship” with Sir Keir Starmer.

    Baroness Chapman (pictured), a shadow Cabinet Office minister, took legal action against the Sunday Times’ chief political commentator Tim Shipman over a tweet the journalist posted in May 2021.

    On Tuesday, the High Court heard Shipman posted two tweets and two retweets about Baroness Chapman to his Twitter account, which currently has almost 180,000 followers.

    In his first tweet on 8 May last year, Shipman said that loyalty to Baroness Chapman appeared to be the “most important commodity as far as Labour high command is concerned this evening”.

    He later retweeted a tweet that included the phrase: “Who is this woman? What has she got on Starmer?”

    His second tweet, which was attributed to an unnamed Labour source, claimed that Baroness Chapman had been banned from Sir Keir’s house “on the orders” of the Labour leader’s wife.

    Baroness Chapman’s solicitor Kevin Bonavia said that this tweet would have been understood to mean “that Baroness Chapman has been conducting a secret adulterous relationship with Sir Keir Starmer”.


    https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/sunday-times-journalist-tim-shipman-pays-substantial-damages-to-shadow-minister-over-tweet/
    I explicitly did not describe any of this tattle, for that precise reason, nor shall I do so
    STFU then.
    The Starmerites are now claiming that Sir Kir Royale’s autocue was ‘sabotaged’ by the hard left, leading to his ‘sausages’ gaffe

    That would explain his making such a peculiar mistake

    So, you can ask me to STFU but the fact is Labour themselves are stoking this story with their own infighting

    What a shower of clowns. lol
    I did humourously/mischieviously suggest he had his "Anchorman" moment and read what was written on the autocue by Corbyn.

    Life imitating art.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6cWMh2IA7g
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Foxy said:

    Projection or anti-semitism?, why not both?


    I think he's buying 200 radio stations because he doesn't realize how much the world has changed in the last 40 years. I can't think of many surer ways to lose money and to fail to influence people.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
    What I find interesting is just as Clarke's subsequent successes as Chancellor failed to erase the public memory of the events of 16th September 1992 which, though paradoxically good for the economy in the longer term, created the perception of a Government which had lost control of the situation, the relative success of Sunak and Hunt in the period after the former became Prime Minister failed to erase the disaster of Truss from the public consciousness.

    Go further back and arguably Callaghan's Government never recovered from Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF - Wilson's Government never really got over devaluation in 1967 and I'd even argue Attlee's Government never recovered from the Shinwell Winter of 1946-47.

    In essence, single events can create powerful perceptions in the public which are almost impossible to shift. This is Starmer's big problem now - the image of a "grifter" has been seared into the public consciousness and whatever he and his Government achieve in the next 3-4 years, shaking that perception is going to be incredibly hard and will act as a drag on Labour electorally.
    Everything that now happens will be viewed through the lense of these stories. You can see that in the jokes about the return of the sausages, that reference his expensive glasses. So it will get reinforced again, and again.
    It really is a lot worse than that. This is the beginning. The joining of all the dots is inevitable, and it spells a person who is so deeply unsuited to the office he finds himself in, it's in danger of swallowing the Labour Party and its entire agenda. Which naturally I'm delighted about, but is going to be quite a trial for their supporters.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    All getting A BIT TETCHY in the Middle East

    Biden has been ineffective in trying to rein in Israel. He really is a lame duck and I’d guess Israel sees the time between now and Jan 6th as a window of opportunity.
    January 20th!
  • nico679 said:

    The IDF wipe out 6 buildings to get a Hezbollah leader .

    Having slaughtered tens of thousands in Gaza they’re moving onto to start slaughtering thousands in the Lebanon .

    Netanyahu should be rotting in a jail cell not swanning around without a care in the world .

    I do not think what the Israelis are doing is right, on so many levels. But you need to check why they are hitting Hezbollah. On Oct 8th Hezbollah attacked Israel, forcing the removal of 60,000 people from their homes. That’s why.
    Hezbollah leaders are perfectly legitimate targets.

    If Hezbollah doesn't want to be at war with Israel then it can stop attacking Israel.

    If it doesn't, Israel has every right to defend herself.
  • SteveS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Tolls on the new Silvertown Tunnel are due come into force next year, alongside new tolls on the existing nearby Blackwall Tunnel.

    It could cost cars and small vans £4 per trip in peak hours or £1.50 off peak. There would be a reduction for some drivers, for example those on low incomes.

    Bexley councillor Richard Diment says the tolls will create a "two-tier London", adding: "In central and western London, where there are far more crossings, no tolls are charged. It will make south-east London even more isolated than it is already."

    He is particularly against the decision to toll Blackwall tunnel, "which has had no toll on it since it opened in the 1890s".

    "Over here in the east, where we have relatively few river crossings, people are going to have to pay.

    "It creates a two-tier London."


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9j0m7gkvdo

    It's a two tier London already, because the queues for the Blackwall tunnel make it almost unusable today already.

    If the tolls reduce the wait time, it makes South East London more attractive, not less.
    But how do you get across the river?
    Rotherhithe tunnel. A miracle of engineering.
    Which, apparently, you can walk through. I never tried that.
    You can certainly walk through the Greenwich-Isle of Dogs foot tunnel.
  • nico679 said:

    Essentially we have an Israeli leader who has decided that the only way to stay in power is to cause mass death and destruction.

    Netanyahu wants Hezbollah to respond and so he can order troops into Lebanon and try and get the Israeli public onside. I’m sure he couldn’t care if hundreds of Israelis get wiped out as long as he can act as the “ war leader “.

    Netanyahu is an awful leader who should be replaced but you are a nasty little antisemite aren't you?

    The idea that anyone wants Hezbollah to respond while ignoring the fact that Hezbollah is already bombing Israel on a routine basis and has been for nearly a year now.

    Should Israel just let itself be attacked by the likes of Hezbollah with no retaliation allowed? Is it just OK in your eyes for Jewish homes to be bombed?

    What kind of Hezbollah "response" is Netanyahu hoping for in your eyes that exceeds the pre-existing already-happening daily bombings Hezbollah is already doing that you are turning a blind eye to?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
    What I find interesting is just as Clarke's subsequent successes as Chancellor failed to erase the public memory of the events of 16th September 1992 which, though paradoxically good for the economy in the longer term, created the perception of a Government which had lost control of the situation, the relative success of Sunak and Hunt in the period after the former became Prime Minister failed to erase the disaster of Truss from the public consciousness.

    Go further back and arguably Callaghan's Government never recovered from Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF - Wilson's Government never really got over devaluation in 1967 and I'd even argue Attlee's Government never recovered from the Shinwell Winter of 1946-47.

    In essence, single events can create powerful perceptions in the public which are almost impossible to shift. This is Starmer's big problem now - the image of a "grifter" has been seared into the public consciousness and whatever he and his Government achieve in the next 3-4 years, shaking that perception is going to be incredibly hard and will act as a drag on Labour electorally.
    Everything that now happens will be viewed through the lense of these stories. You can see that in the jokes about the return of the sausages, that reference his expensive glasses. So it will get reinforced again, and again.
    It really is a lot worse than that. This is the beginning. The joining of all the dots is inevitable, and it spells a person who is so deeply unsuited to the office he finds himself in, it's in danger of swallowing the Labour Party and its entire agenda. Which naturally I'm delighted about, but is going to be quite a trial for their supporters.
    The Labour Party has an agenda?

    They just seem to be making it up day by day (and no Sunak wasn't much better).
  • Taz said:

    Leon said:

    All getting A BIT TETCHY in the Middle East

    Biden has been ineffective in trying to rein in Israel. He really is a lame duck and I’d guess Israel sees the time between now and Jan 6th as a window of opportunity.
    January 20th!
    Natural mistake in the Age of Trump.

    Which is sure the fuck aging ME. And I and NOT alone . . .
  • stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
    What I find interesting is just as Clarke's subsequent successes as Chancellor failed to erase the public memory of the events of 16th September 1992 which, though paradoxically good for the economy in the longer term, created the perception of a Government which had lost control of the situation, the relative success of Sunak and Hunt in the period after the former became Prime Minister failed to erase the disaster of Truss from the public consciousness.

    Go further back and arguably Callaghan's Government never recovered from Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF - Wilson's Government never really got over devaluation in 1967 and I'd even argue Attlee's Government never recovered from the Shinwell Winter of 1946-47.

    In essence, single events can create powerful perceptions in the public which are almost impossible to shift. This is Starmer's big problem now - the image of a "grifter" has been seared into the public consciousness and whatever he and his Government achieve in the next 3-4 years, shaking that perception is going to be incredibly hard and will act as a drag on Labour electorally.
    Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
  • 'Evening all, but not such a great one.

    I'm increasingly coming round to my wife's view, who is a Jewish person who even knows a couple of the lefr-wing Israelis protesting against Netanyahu outside the U.N., that if the Americans cannot bring him to heel, his government should be subject to international sanctions, and travel bans.

    There's also the question of the ICC indictment against Netanyahu, as I recall it, and the ICC is not the "U.N. Pro-Arabists'l", as his far-right ministers like to call it. The Israeli population at large need to understand that if their nation continues on this kind of trajectory, then it's heading for South African-style, pariah status in the world
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,236

    FPT:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    I don't want to be Old Mister Gloomy-gusset, but this is also quite depressing, and absolutely crucial:

    "Yesterday's data dump from the Government also showed we have the highest domestic electricity prices in the IEA. On a par with Germany, but ~80% above the IEA median, 3.5X Korea and 2.8X USA. Prices like these are an existential threat to the economy. (1/2)"

    https://x.com/7Kiwi/status/1839569654366216407

    Britain is deliberately setting itelf on a path of absolute economic decline. We cannot compete when we cripple outselves like this. Labour will helplessly preside over a stagnant economy (or actually make it worse thanks to Ed Miliband), so they will get booted out in 2029 and we will probably get Farage as PM

    UK wholesale electricity prices are high mainly, but not wholly, because of the high proportion of gas in the generation mix, something Miliband is trying to change. Other reasons include lack of transmission capacity (ditto) and lack of gas storage so it has to be imported at spot prices (Don't know if Miliband is doing anything about this but it is in any case a situation he inherited).
    South Korea has a higher proportion of gas in its generation mix than the UK.

    The UK renewables were 43% of the total in the last 12 months
    For South Korea that number was 19%

    So why is electricity price in the UK 3.5x higher than in S.Korea?
    A quick search suggests Korean wholesale electricity prices are similar to the UK at about 7p per KWH. Also the Korean generation company is bleeding cash due to price controls. I have no further insight than that, sorry.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,608
    Hard to disagree with this:


  • 'Evening all, but not such a great one.

    I'm increasingly coming round to my wife's view, who is a Jewish person who even knows a couple of the lefr-wing Israelis protesting against Netanyahu outside the U.N., that if the Americans cannot bring him to heel, his government should be subject to international sanctions, and travel bans.

    There's also the question of the ICC indictment against Netanyahu, as I recall it, and the ICC is not the "U.N. Pro-Arabists'l", as his far-right ministers like to call it. The Israeli population at large need to understand that if their nation continues on this kind of trajectory, then it's heading for South African-style, pariah status in the world

    Utter rubbish, Israel has every right to defend itself and to seek to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.

    For the war to end only requires Hamas and Hezbollah to surrender and lay down their arms. If they don't, then war it is until they do. That's the nature of war, its sad but the world has wars and Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking Israel which has every right to defend itself and they need to be comprehensively and completely defeated.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,549
    The FT has an article suggesting that all the gifts to politicians could well be taxable as arising from their employment as an office holder.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,236
    FF43 said:

    FPT:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    I don't want to be Old Mister Gloomy-gusset, but this is also quite depressing, and absolutely crucial:

    "Yesterday's data dump from the Government also showed we have the highest domestic electricity prices in the IEA. On a par with Germany, but ~80% above the IEA median, 3.5X Korea and 2.8X USA. Prices like these are an existential threat to the economy. (1/2)"

    https://x.com/7Kiwi/status/1839569654366216407

    Britain is deliberately setting itelf on a path of absolute economic decline. We cannot compete when we cripple outselves like this. Labour will helplessly preside over a stagnant economy (or actually make it worse thanks to Ed Miliband), so they will get booted out in 2029 and we will probably get Farage as PM

    UK wholesale electricity prices are high mainly, but not wholly, because of the high proportion of gas in the generation mix, something Miliband is trying to change. Other reasons include lack of transmission capacity (ditto) and lack of gas storage so it has to be imported at spot prices (Don't know if Miliband is doing anything about this but it is in any case a situation he inherited).
    South Korea has a higher proportion of gas in its generation mix than the UK.

    The UK renewables were 43% of the total in the last 12 months
    For South Korea that number was 19%

    So why is electricity price in the UK 3.5x higher than in S.Korea?
    A quick search suggests Korean wholesale electricity prices are similar to the UK at about 7p per KWH. Also the Korean generation company is bleeding cash due to price controls. I have no further insight than that, sorry.
    You might find this article interesting

    https://ieefa.org/resources/south-koreas-power-trilemma
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,114
    rcs1000 said:

    Hard to disagree with this:


    Let's hope there enough American indie voters who agree in Penn and Georgia and Wisconsin etc.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,807
    edited September 27
    Fishing said:

    stodge said:

    stodge said:

    Leon said:

    Who, here, would begrudge the First Lord of the Treasury 100 pairs of silk-cashmere socks at £450 a pair? Fair dos, he has a hard job, this is just petty quibbling now. Fair dos

    It's the politics of envy.

    We saw it when Sunak used his own money to buy expensive fashion choices.
    You mean he has more money than sense?
    More politics of envy.
    Indeed.It’s refreshing that we have a PM and First Lady that look smart on the world stage.

    Labour donor gives a clothing allowance to Labour politicians. So what?
    I thought "there is no money left"...
    You do realise that Labour’s donations aren’t taxpayers’ money? I mean if you don’t realise that then you are no different to most PBers and 70% of Joe Public TBF.
    So the money is in the hands of the Fat-Cat donors?
    Well yes, but that’s the system we have. If you want to ban donations and have state-funding for political parties I’m all for it.
    You continue to attempt to justify the sleeze and cronyism on full display from the one person who said he would bring integrity to the office and end it

    The hypocrisy is breathtaking, and some of those leading the criticism are from the left including the Guardian tonight

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons

    You comment that he can console himself with a 174 majority but that majority was won on just under 34% of the electorate and his 10 year plan looks very unlikely he will achieve it

    I do not know how much more is to come out but the constant drip of stories makes for nervous times for labour supporters

    Furthermore Reeves policies on non doms, WFP, private schools vat, and even North Sea oil windfall taxes are evaporating before her very eyes, and warnings of excess borrowing and fiddling with the rules could see interest rates and mortgages stay high for a long time

    I very much doubt anybody expected labour's first 100 days to be such a unmitigated car crash
    Even Labour's staunchest friends would admit it's not been a smooth start and as I've said and you've tacitly acknowledged, it's not the gifts themselves which are the problem but the way they contradict the pre-election commitments of Starmer, Reeves and others to comport themselves in Government in a different manner to that of especially Johnson but other Conservative Prime and Cabinet Ministers.

    Combine the hypocrisy with the removal of the winter fuel allowance and the irrefutable image is that of senior politicians partying and enjoying life without paying a penny while some pensioners will be struggling to keep warm this winter and that doesn't suit well with a public for whom the notion of "fairness" is seemingly paramount.

    The election, however, happened and the Conservatives lost and lost badly.

    As to what Reeves will do in the Budget, we'll find out in due time. There are some encouraging signs on the economic front and you can credit Sunak and Hunt with those or not as the case may be. We are still borrowing too much in my view and the measures required to reduce that borrowing will be, as in 2010, a combination of tax rises and spending cuts but we'll see how those cards are played.

    On a tangent, this has probably been a chastening experience for the Government and IF they learn from it, it could paradoxically work to their benefit in the longer term and IF we see the culture of "gifts" reduced or eliminated from Government and politics, it might also improve the governance of the country.
    Your response to my post is excellent and I really cannot agree more with your last paragraph

    In regard to Sunak and Hunt they did recover the economy from the Truss nightmare, which if anyone forgets was Sunaks prediction when he stood against her, and the 10 billion British volt site investment in Blyth announced by Starmer was agreed by Sunak before the election
    What I find interesting is just as Clarke's subsequent successes as Chancellor failed to erase the public memory of the events of 16th September 1992 which, though paradoxically good for the economy in the longer term, created the perception of a Government which had lost control of the situation, the relative success of Sunak and Hunt in the period after the former became Prime Minister failed to erase the disaster of Truss from the public consciousness.

    Go further back and arguably Callaghan's Government never recovered from Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF - Wilson's Government never really got over devaluation in 1967 and I'd even argue Attlee's Government never recovered from the Shinwell Winter of 1946-47.

    In essence, single events can create powerful perceptions in the public which are almost impossible to shift. This is Starmer's big problem now - the image of a "grifter" has been seared into the public consciousness and whatever he and his Government achieve in the next 3-4 years, shaking that perception is going to be incredibly hard and will act as a drag on Labour electorally.
    Everything that now happens will be viewed through the lense of these stories. You can see that in the jokes about the return of the sausages, that reference his expensive glasses. So it will get reinforced again, and again.
    It really is a lot worse than that. This is the beginning. The joining of all the dots is inevitable, and it spells a person who is so deeply unsuited to the office he finds himself in, it's in danger of swallowing the Labour Party and its entire agenda. Which naturally I'm delighted about, but is going to be quite a trial for their supporters.
    The Labour Party has an agenda?

    They just seem to be making it up day by day (and no Sunak wasn't much better).
    It doesn't seem like it, but broadly it seems to me that its missions are to:
    a) Tie the UK back in to the EU
    b) Enshrine its Orwellian social democratic statist world view permanently into the fabric of UK constitution, via the judiciary, treaty obligations, a compliant media etc. - any way it can to prevent the UK ever departing from the true faith, regardless of what the electorate may come to think.

    Mercifully, God does not seem in the least bit impressed, and he hath stricken them with Starmer.
  • The FT has an article suggesting that all the gifts to politicians could well be taxable as arising from their employment as an office holder.

    Which returns us to the question of why very few Conservative politicians have run with this story.

    Because if the question is "who does that hurt most?", I suspect the answer isn't the current PM.

    (We saw the same with the original expenses scandal. The Conservative Party sometimes needs to remember that the right wing press aren't necessarily their allies.)
  • 'Evening all, but not such a great one.

    I'm increasingly coming round to my wife's view, who is a Jewish person who even knows a couple of the lefr-wing Israelis protesting against Netanyahu outside the U.N., that if the Americans cannot bring him to heel, his government should be subject to international sanctions, and travel bans.

    There's also the question of the ICC indictment against Netanyahu, as I recall it, and the ICC is not the "U.N. Pro-Arabists'l", as his far-right ministers like to call it. The Israeli population at large need to understand that if their nation continues on this kind of trajectory, then it's heading for South African-style, pariah status in the world

    Utter rubbish, Israel has every right to defend itself and to seek to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.

    For the war to end only requires Hamas and Hezbollah to surrender and lay down their arms. If they don't, then war it is until they do. That's the nature of war, its sad but the world has wars and Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking Israel which has every right to defend itself and they need to be comprehensively and completely defeated.
    What do you think about the way in which Israel is fighting this war?

    In Gaza they seem not to be occupying territory and establishing an occupation authority that would have responsibility for looking after civilians and would create a sense of a positive future for Gaza being possible, but instead they go into an area, trash everything, then retreat, let Hamas come back, then repeat.

    It seems to be a recipe for permanent war, rather than for a complete defeat of Hamas. We are close to one year in and Hamas still have large numbers of hostages. The Israeli strategy has failed, except insofar as it keeps Netanyahu safe from a corruption trial.

    I don't agree at all with the way Netanyahu is running the country or conducting the war.

    I think Israel is being far too soft with Hamas and Hezbollah under Netanyahu as I agree that I think he wants the war to be ongoing and not won. Similarly he was way too soft with Hamas before October last year leading to those tragic events.

    Netanyahu is like Chamberlain, only much worse. Israel needs its Churchill who can lead them to victory and actually destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.
  • FF43 said:

    FPT:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    I don't want to be Old Mister Gloomy-gusset, but this is also quite depressing, and absolutely crucial:

    "Yesterday's data dump from the Government also showed we have the highest domestic electricity prices in the IEA. On a par with Germany, but ~80% above the IEA median, 3.5X Korea and 2.8X USA. Prices like these are an existential threat to the economy. (1/2)"

    https://x.com/7Kiwi/status/1839569654366216407

    Britain is deliberately setting itelf on a path of absolute economic decline. We cannot compete when we cripple outselves like this. Labour will helplessly preside over a stagnant economy (or actually make it worse thanks to Ed Miliband), so they will get booted out in 2029 and we will probably get Farage as PM

    UK wholesale electricity prices are high mainly, but not wholly, because of the high proportion of gas in the generation mix, something Miliband is trying to change. Other reasons include lack of transmission capacity (ditto) and lack of gas storage so it has to be imported at spot prices (Don't know if Miliband is doing anything about this but it is in any case a situation he inherited).
    South Korea has a higher proportion of gas in its generation mix than the UK.

    The UK renewables were 43% of the total in the last 12 months
    For South Korea that number was 19%

    So why is electricity price in the UK 3.5x higher than in S.Korea?
    A quick search suggests Korean wholesale electricity prices are similar to the UK at about 7p per KWH. Also the Korean generation company is bleeding cash due to price controls. I have no further insight than that, sorry.
    Well not according to our own Government we don't. See the link from Leon which started this discussion. It is quoting directly the Government figures.
  • 'Evening all, but not such a great one.

    I'm increasingly coming round to my wife's view, who is a Jewish person who even knows a couple of the lefr-wing Israelis protesting against Netanyahu outside the U.N., that if the Americans cannot bring him to heel, his government should be subject to international sanctions, and travel bans.

    There's also the question of the ICC indictment against Netanyahu, as I recall it, and the ICC is not the "U.N. Pro-Arabists'l", as his far-right ministers like to call it. The Israeli population at large need to understand that if their nation continues on this kind of trajectory, then it's heading for South African-style, pariah status in the world

    Utter rubbish, Israel has every right to defend itself and to seek to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.

    For the war to end only requires Hamas and Hezbollah to surrender and lay down their arms. If they don't, then war it is until they do. That's the nature of war, its sad but the world has wars and Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking Israel which has every right to defend itself and they need to be comprehensively and completely defeated.
    What do you think about the way in which Israel is fighting this war?

    In Gaza they seem not to be occupying territory and establishing an occupation authority that would have responsibility for looking after civilians and would create a sense of a positive future for Gaza being possible, but instead they go into an area, trash everything, then retreat, let Hamas come back, then repeat.

    It seems to be a recipe for permanent war, rather than for a complete defeat of Hamas. We are close to one year in and Hamas still have large numbers of hostages. The Israeli strategy has failed, except insofar as it keeps Netanyahu safe from a corruption trial.

    Precisely so. Netanyahu's goal is transparently obviously not "total victory" but continuous war. Total victory would mean the end of war unity in Israel, and his long-delayed trials on corruption charges.

    He's tried twice, now, to start wars with Iran, on order to lock on not just domestic, Israeli, but also Western unity behind him, and now is trying it via th upping of conflict with Hezbollah.
  • 'Evening all, but not such a great one.

    I'm increasingly coming round to my wife's view, who is a Jewish person who even knows a couple of the lefr-wing Israelis protesting against Netanyahu outside the U.N., that if the Americans cannot bring him to heel, his government should be subject to international sanctions, and travel bans.

    There's also the question of the ICC indictment against Netanyahu, as I recall it, and the ICC is not the "U.N. Pro-Arabists'l", as his far-right ministers like to call it. The Israeli population at large need to understand that if their nation continues on this kind of trajectory, then it's heading for South African-style, pariah status in the world

    Utter rubbish, Israel has every right to defend itself and to seek to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.

    For the war to end only requires Hamas and Hezbollah to surrender and lay down their arms. If they don't, then war it is until they do. That's the nature of war, its sad but the world has wars and Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking Israel which has every right to defend itself and they need to be comprehensively and completely defeated.
    What do you think about the way in which Israel is fighting this war?

    In Gaza they seem not to be occupying territory and establishing an occupation authority that would have responsibility for looking after civilians and would create a sense of a positive future for Gaza being possible, but instead they go into an area, trash everything, then retreat, let Hamas come back, then repeat.

    It seems to be a recipe for permanent war, rather than for a complete defeat of Hamas. We are close to one year in and Hamas still have large numbers of hostages. The Israeli strategy has failed, except insofar as it keeps Netanyahu safe from a corruption trial.

    Precisely so. Netanyahu's goal is transparently obviously not "total victory" but continuous war. Total victory would mean the end of war unity in Israel, and his long-delayed trials on corruption charges.

    He's tried twice, now, to start wars with Iran, on order to lock on not just domestic, Israeli, but also Western unity behind him, and now is trying it via th upping of conflict with Hezbollah.
    Hezbollah is attacking Israel already and Iran is behind the attacks of both Hamas and Hezbollah.

    A better leader than Netanyahu would be doing more, not less, to attain victory.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857
    Leon said:

    I actually feel sorry for Sir Kir

    I mean who here hasn’t gone into primark for some essentials, bought a couple of pairs of socks, maybe a hoodie, then 400 tee shirts and then seventy three million three thousand two hundred and eight bobble hats, and suddenly realised you’ve overshot your limited £32,000 budget of free money given you by a man who wants nothing in return for it and also insists on you using his penthouse all the time which you then pretend is your own home during lockdown on TV

    That could happen to anyone. Fair dos

    Two points. One is that primark is not really the best place for bobble hats. I recommend a particular very provincial northern Christmas bazaar where ladies who knit them for seafarers (it's the seafaring equivalent of knitting blanket squares for randomers, or soft toys for Great Ormond Street) sell their surplus in a good cause. I buy several at a time in order to fund the (excellent non seafaring) cause of the bazaar, and then throw them away. All parties satisfied.

    If you are in mid pacific and spot a Bangladeshi seafarer wearing a bobble hat with a unicorn knitted into it, you will know where it came from. I sometimes idly wonder what seafarer support organisations do with several million of them.

    Secondly, the freebie stuff when combined with the WFA thing just resonates slightly with that memorable sound of corks popping and tinkling glasses drowning out the lonelier sound of the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral. And our beloved queen looking like every widow in Covid times and being loyal and exemplary and brave. Which did for Boris and co. It won't quite do.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,125
    edited September 27

    'Evening all, but not such a great one.

    I'm increasingly coming round to my wife's view, who is a Jewish person who even knows a couple of the lefr-wing Israelis protesting against Netanyahu outside the U.N., that if the Americans cannot bring him to heel, his government should be subject to international sanctions, and travel bans.

    There's also the question of the ICC indictment against Netanyahu, as I recall it, and the ICC is not the "U.N. Pro-Arabists'l", as his far-right ministers like to call it. The Israeli population at large need to understand that if their nation continues on this kind of trajectory, then it's heading for South African-style, pariah status in the world

    Utter rubbish, Israel has every right to defend itself and to seek to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.

    For the war to end only requires Hamas and Hezbollah to surrender and lay down their arms. If they don't, then war it is until they do. That's the nature of war, its sad but the world has wars and Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking Israel which has every right to defend itself and they need to be comprehensively and completely defeated.
    What do you think about the way in which Israel is fighting this war?

    In Gaza they seem not to be occupying territory and establishing an occupation authority that would have responsibility for looking after civilians and would create a sense of a positive future for Gaza being possible, but instead they go into an area, trash everything, then retreat, let Hamas come back, then repeat.

    It seems to be a recipe for permanent war, rather than for a complete defeat of Hamas. We are close to one year in and Hamas still have large numbers of hostages. The Israeli strategy has failed, except insofar as it keeps Netanyahu safe from a corruption trial.

    I don't agree at all with the way Netanyahu is running the country or conducting the war.

    I think Israel is being far too soft with Hamas and Hezbollah under Netanyahu as I agree that I think he wants the war to be ongoing and not won. Similarly he was way too soft with Hamas before October last year leading to those tragic events.

    Netanyahu is like Chamberlain, only much worse. Israel needs its Churchill who can lead them to victory and actually destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.
    Netanyahu is indeed making things much too easy for Hamas and Hezbollah.

    He is providing them with all the recruits and worldwide sympathy they could ask for and need to make sure the war goes on for another generation.

    That was, I'm sure, exactly what Hamas wanted when they invaded a year ago.
  • Fishing said:

    'Evening all, but not such a great one.

    I'm increasingly coming round to my wife's view, who is a Jewish person who even knows a couple of the lefr-wing Israelis protesting against Netanyahu outside the U.N., that if the Americans cannot bring him to heel, his government should be subject to international sanctions, and travel bans.

    There's also the question of the ICC indictment against Netanyahu, as I recall it, and the ICC is not the "U.N. Pro-Arabists'l", as his far-right ministers like to call it. The Israeli population at large need to understand that if their nation continues on this kind of trajectory, then it's heading for South African-style, pariah status in the world

    Utter rubbish, Israel has every right to defend itself and to seek to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.

    For the war to end only requires Hamas and Hezbollah to surrender and lay down their arms. If they don't, then war it is until they do. That's the nature of war, its sad but the world has wars and Hamas and Hezbollah are attacking Israel which has every right to defend itself and they need to be comprehensively and completely defeated.
    What do you think about the way in which Israel is fighting this war?

    In Gaza they seem not to be occupying territory and establishing an occupation authority that would have responsibility for looking after civilians and would create a sense of a positive future for Gaza being possible, but instead they go into an area, trash everything, then retreat, let Hamas come back, then repeat.

    It seems to be a recipe for permanent war, rather than for a complete defeat of Hamas. We are close to one year in and Hamas still have large numbers of hostages. The Israeli strategy has failed, except insofar as it keeps Netanyahu safe from a corruption trial.

    I don't agree at all with the way Netanyahu is running the country or conducting the war.

    I think Israel is being far too soft with Hamas and Hezbollah under Netanyahu as I agree that I think he wants the war to be ongoing and not won. Similarly he was way too soft with Hamas before October last year leading to those tragic events.

    Netanyahu is like Chamberlain, only much worse. Israel needs its Churchill who can lead them to victory and actually destroy Hamas and Hezbollah.
    Netanyahu is indeed making things much too easy for Hamas and Hezbollah.

    He is providing them with all the recruits and worldwide sympathy they could ask for and need to make sure the war goes on for another generation.
    Indeed.

    Israel needs to replace Netanyahu with a Churchill-like figure that will win the war by killing those recruits until the enemy surrenders unconditionally, just as the Nazis did after they were defeated, and then we can move on from war.

    Instead Netanyahu is doing just enough to continue the violence but not enough to win. Israel needs to fight much harder than it is doing to win.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,857

    rcs1000 said:

    Hard to disagree with this:


    Let's hope there enough American indie voters who agree in Penn and Georgia and Wisconsin etc.
    Yes. I remember thinking in 2016, if I had a vote I wouldn't vote for either Hilary or Trump. Both just awful. This time I wouldn't care who it was as long as it isn't Trump and they had a basic understanding of the meaning of democracy and the concept of truth and didn't plan to nuke Norway.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,114

    rcs1000 said:

    Hard to disagree with this:


    I disagree with his spelling of exorcise.
    British English spelling is exorcize and he is a Brit (long departed of these shores).
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,443

    rcs1000 said:

    Tolls on the new Silvertown Tunnel are due come into force next year, alongside new tolls on the existing nearby Blackwall Tunnel.

    It could cost cars and small vans £4 per trip in peak hours or £1.50 off peak. There would be a reduction for some drivers, for example those on low incomes.

    Bexley councillor Richard Diment says the tolls will create a "two-tier London", adding: "In central and western London, where there are far more crossings, no tolls are charged. It will make south-east London even more isolated than it is already."

    He is particularly against the decision to toll Blackwall tunnel, "which has had no toll on it since it opened in the 1890s".

    "Over here in the east, where we have relatively few river crossings, people are going to have to pay.

    "It creates a two-tier London."


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9j0m7gkvdo

    It's a two tier London already, because the queues for the Blackwall tunnel make it almost unusable today already.

    If the tolls reduce the wait time, it makes South East London more attractive, not less.
    But how do you get across the river?
    Surely you should be asking “why”?

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,236

    FF43 said:

    FPT:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    I don't want to be Old Mister Gloomy-gusset, but this is also quite depressing, and absolutely crucial:

    "Yesterday's data dump from the Government also showed we have the highest domestic electricity prices in the IEA. On a par with Germany, but ~80% above the IEA median, 3.5X Korea and 2.8X USA. Prices like these are an existential threat to the economy. (1/2)"

    https://x.com/7Kiwi/status/1839569654366216407

    Britain is deliberately setting itelf on a path of absolute economic decline. We cannot compete when we cripple outselves like this. Labour will helplessly preside over a stagnant economy (or actually make it worse thanks to Ed Miliband), so they will get booted out in 2029 and we will probably get Farage as PM

    UK wholesale electricity prices are high mainly, but not wholly, because of the high proportion of gas in the generation mix, something Miliband is trying to change. Other reasons include lack of transmission capacity (ditto) and lack of gas storage so it has to be imported at spot prices (Don't know if Miliband is doing anything about this but it is in any case a situation he inherited).
    South Korea has a higher proportion of gas in its generation mix than the UK.

    The UK renewables were 43% of the total in the last 12 months
    For South Korea that number was 19%

    So why is electricity price in the UK 3.5x higher than in S.Korea?
    A quick search suggests Korean wholesale electricity prices are similar to the UK at about 7p per KWH. Also the Korean generation company is bleeding cash due to price controls. I have no further insight than that, sorry.
    Well not according to our own Government we don't. See the link from Leon which started this discussion. It is quoting directly the Government figures.
    Those were retail prices? Which is why I posted the link to that article. Basically the Korean government is price controlling the retail price such that the power company is loading the losses onto debts currently running to $150 billion which will land on future bill payers.
This discussion has been closed.