Does anyone think that the government's new Commission, or whatever it's called, to recover money from "fraudulent" PPE deals will actually work?
I'm quite sure that it'll cost more than it will earn from its endeavours
Perhaps it won't get the money back, but it will make the fraudsters, scammers and their friends in the last government keep their heads down.
We don't usually expect to make a profit by punishing wrong doers. We do it to prevent further abuses.
I may have this wrong, but I thought that it was being quite prominently promoted as action to recover/raise money
If I'm incorrect, and the financial gain is just being pushed as a subsidiary hope, so long as the perceived wrongdoing is all appropriately punished, then show me the volunteers to help provide PPE in the next crisis
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
I mean seriously. How stupid would she need to be for you to recognise it? No chance in Texas, and no relevance to the result.
More likely her campaign aren't convinced her presense is a net positive.
So:
When Trump makes a stop in California, it's a sign of his strength. And when Harris makes a stop in Texas, it's a sign of her weakness.
Here's the thing: the candidates have no better idea than we do of what's happening.
We don't know. It's entirely possible - as Nate Cohn at NYTimes suggests - that the past vote weighting means the Republican vote share is overstated. It's also possible that the reasons for Dems being easier to find in 2020 (i.e. they were more likely to be locked down at home than Republicans) simply don't apply this year.
And finally, it's perfectly possible that "Shy Trump" simply is no longer a thing.
We don't know.
What we do know is that the data from Nevada in terms of early voting looks very good for the Republicans, while the data from Georgia looks similarly decent for the Democrats.
I've never said Trump stopping in stupid states is a sign of strength - I was just despairing of a poster I consider sensible on British politics posting bilge about American.
Is there evidence of the Georgia early vote being good for 1 candidate or the other - aside from the general trend of R early vote being up more, I'm not sure a subsample of a poll which has them tied constitutes 'what we know' to the same extent as the declared party registrations elsewhere.
Sure: the highest early turnout counties - all well into the 30s are - are in the Atlanta metropolitan area. And, women outnumber men 56:44 in early voting.
Both of those, I would have thought, are positives for the Democrats.
Party registration of ballots cast: Rep 48 Dem 46 Oth 6
If these voters have actually voted Harris 54, Trump 45 then that would surely be an absolutely brilliant result for Harris and imply (if trend continues) that she was on course for a landslide win.
Almost makes you wonder if there's a simpler explanation...
Those early voting numbers are more consistent with the polling that gives Trump a small lead in Georgia.
Bingo. But if you compare them to confected early vote party ID numbers you can believe they actually imply Kamala is getting 100% of Dems, 100% of independants and a tasty chunk of GOP on top - it's a chance, but it's not a particularly credible one.
To repeat:
Georgia does not release early voting by party registration. So those CNN numbers will be "implied" by a survey/opinion poll, they aren't actuals.
Does anyone think that the government's new Commission, or whatever it's called, to recover money from "fraudulent" PPE deals will actually work?
I'm quite sure that it'll cost more than it will earn from its endeavours
Perhaps it won't get the money back, but it will make the fraudsters, scammers and their friends in the last government keep their heads down.
We don't usually expect to make a profit by punishing wrong doers. We do it to prevent further abuses.
I may have this wrong, but I thought that it was being quite prominently promoted as action to recover/raise money
If I'm incorrect, and the financial gain is just being pushed as a subsidiary hope, so long as the perceived wrongdoing is all appropriately punished, then show me the volunteers to help provide PPE in the next crisis
So, you think the scammers and fraudsters should be let off in case we need to be scammed and defrauded again?
Party registration of ballots cast: Rep 48 Dem 46 Oth 6
If these voters have actually voted Harris 54, Trump 45 then that would surely be an absolutely brilliant result for Harris and imply (if trend continues) that she was on course for a landslide win.
Almost makes you wonder if there's a simpler explanation...
Those early voting numbers are more consistent with the polling that gives Trump a small lead in Georgia.
Bingo. But if you compare them to confected early vote party ID numbers you can believe they actually imply Kamala is getting 100% of Dems, 100% of independants and a tasty chunk of GOP on top - it's a chance, but it's not a particularly credible one.
To repeat:
Georgia does not release early voting by party registration. So those CNN numbers will be "implied" by a survey/opinion poll, they aren't actuals.
That's exactly why I used the word confected to mock anyone trying to do that analysis.
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
I mean seriously. How stupid would she need to be for you to recognise it? No chance in Texas, and no relevance to the result.
More likely her campaign aren't convinced her presense is a net positive.
So:
When Trump makes a stop in California, it's a sign of his strength. And when Harris makes a stop in Texas, it's a sign of her weakness.
Here's the thing: the candidates have no better idea than we do of what's happening.
We don't know. It's entirely possible - as Nate Cohn at NYTimes suggests - that the past vote weighting means the Republican vote share is overstated. It's also possible that the reasons for Dems being easier to find in 2020 (i.e. they were more likely to be locked down at home than Republicans) simply don't apply this year.
And finally, it's perfectly possible that "Shy Trump" simply is no longer a thing.
We don't know.
What we do know is that the data from Nevada in terms of early voting looks very good for the Republicans, while the data from Georgia looks similarly decent for the Democrats.
I've never said Trump stopping in stupid states is a sign of strength - I was just despairing of a poster I consider sensible on British politics posting bilge about American.
Is there evidence of the Georgia early vote being good for 1 candidate or the other - aside from the general trend of R early vote being up more, I'm not sure a subsample of a poll which has them tied constitutes 'what we know' to the same extent as the declared party registrations elsewhere.
Sure: the highest early turnout counties - all well into the 30s are - are in the Atlanta metropolitan area. And, women outnumber men 56:44 in early voting.
Both of those, I would have thought, are positives for the Democrats.
Do we have comparisons to prior elections - if that's a shift from 2020, or 2016 if we want to avoid COVID impacts would indeed be notable.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Getting ready for the outflow of Americans after Trump/Harris (delete as appropriate) triumphs next month.
If Trump won you could see some Democrats moving to Canada, even Polievre would be better for them than him, they might even come to the UK given it is also English speaking and a developed country and has a centre left government (Australia also an option on that front).
For Trump voters however there is nowhere more rightwing in the developed western world to go than the USA, though a few of them in blue or purple states if Polievre got in in Canada might try Alberta for 4 years
Party registration of ballots cast: Rep 48 Dem 46 Oth 6
If these voters have actually voted Harris 54, Trump 45 then that would surely be an absolutely brilliant result for Harris and imply (if trend continues) that she was on course for a landslide win.
Does anyone think that the government's new Commission, or whatever it's called, to recover money from "fraudulent" PPE deals will actually work?
I'm quite sure that it'll cost more than it will earn from its endeavours
Perhaps it won't get the money back, but it will make the fraudsters, scammers and their friends in the last government keep their heads down.
We don't usually expect to make a profit by punishing wrong doers. We do it to prevent further abuses.
I may have this wrong, but I thought that it was being quite prominently promoted as action to recover/raise money
If I'm incorrect, and the financial gain is just being pushed as a subsidiary hope, so long as the perceived wrongdoing is all appropriately punished, then show me the volunteers to help provide PPE in the next crisis
So, you think the scammers and fraudsters should be let off in case we need to be scammed and defrauded again?
It's a view, I suppose.
Those people could be pursued legally without a whole commission
This looks like they're desperately hoping to dig up something about Con MPs (or more likely exMPs), and probably a particular Lady
I expect it to be an expensive vendetta to spend public money on
Sunak and Hunt destroyed HS2. That alone is enough to say they are totally incompetent.
That was their worst decision, and one I vociferously argued against at the time.
However, on everything else?
God I'd love to have them back.
It would be quite nuce to have some politicians in charge who understand that decisions have consequences, certainly. I hesitate to call Starmer and Reeves "fucking idiots" - because they must have some sort of intellect to have got where they are in life. Perhaps Labour being in opposition for so long has just got them used to reflexively calling for whatever but of left wing fluff makes them feel good like chasing away non doms or giving the Chagos Islands to *cough* Mauritius or taxing private schools without it mattering what happens as a result.
On topic - The problem with that is the fact that while immigration plays really well for the Reps their lead on the economy has crumbled over the last couple of months. It is generally single figures if that. Some serious pollsters have Harris AHEAD on the economy. Meanwhile on most of the minor issues Harris has massive leads.
The thing to watch is the turn-out. If its a base election then Trump wins. If it is a big turn-out election (especially in the battleground states and especially among women) then he is in deep trouble. At the moment it looks more like the latter. Pushing 30 million votes already cast with over a week before polling day
Won't CPU clusters be poor for current AI stuff, or are they going extinct?
Essentially nobody now builds new CPU only HPC systems. In the top 100 supercomputers roughly 90% of them have an accelerator of some sort, and even the remaining 10% or so often have CPU features that are basically accelerators, like some of the Chinese (Sunway and Matrix-2000) and Japanese (A64FX) systems. It's quite likely that the top 100 and top 500 will all have accelerators within a few years.
In fact the cancelled system was planned to use GPUs, presumably from Nvidia or AMD as there are no other viable options, so it's bloody hard to see how such a system would not have been perfectly fine for running AI workloads.
I got an email this morning announcing the availability of the AI Hat for the Raspberry Pi 5...
Back in the day, the IT guy at our church enquired of the church secretary "Has the macintosh arrived?" The bewildered secretary said "What?????" so the chap just repeated his question. They went round in circles for several iterations before I intervened, "Do you mean the Apple Macintosh?" and the secretary caught on, "Oh you mean the computer!!!"
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
I mean seriously. How stupid would she need to be for you to recognise it? No chance in Texas, and no relevance to the result.
More likely her campaign aren't convinced her presense is a net positive.
Hence they are sending Obama to North Carolina tomorrow, after he was in Wisconsin with Walz yesterday and Michigan with Eminem earlier in the week and is in Georgia with Harris today.
Looking at the polls Obama and to a lesser extent Walz generally have higher approval ratings with US voters than Harris does, so if she does win it will likely be with them dragging her over the line. Obama to get the black vote out, Walz to get the white union blue collar vote out while she focuses on white women graduates which is the only voter category she clearly appeals to relative to the average Dem (she is also being sent to DC in the next few days for a pro choice rally)
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Getting ready for the outflow of Americans after Trump/Harris (delete as appropriate) triumphs next month.
If Trump won you could see some Democrats moving to Canada, even Polievre would be better for them than him, they might even come to the UK given it is also English speaking and a developed country and has a centre left government (Australia also an option on that front).
For Trump voters however there is nowhere more rightwing in the developed western world to go than the USA, though a few of them in blue or purple states if Polievre got in in Canada might try Alberta for 4 years
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
What the fuck is she doing there? Trump went to Colorado, Harris to Texas: why? Why? Why are these people acting so stupidly? Make the world make sense, somebody...
Senate race presumably?
Yep. A very competitve race, made so by the Republican being probably the biggest asshole in the Senate.
On topic - The problem with that is the fact that while immigration plays really well for the Reps their lead on the economy has crumbled over the last couple of months. It is generally single figures if that. Some serious pollsters have Harris AHEAD on the economy. Meanwhile on most of the minor issues Harris has massive leads.
The thing to watch is the turn-out. If its a base election then Trump wins. If it is a big turn-out election (especially in the battleground states and especially among women) then he is in deep trouble. At the moment it looks more like the latter. Pushing 30 million votes already cast with over a week before polling day
We've been here before in 2004. There was a big turn out and Kerry was ahead in the polls. Then it turned out that the big turnout was for Bush...
Sunak and Hunt destroyed HS2. That alone is enough to say they are totally incompetent.
That was their worst decision, and one I vociferously argued against at the time.
However, on everything else?
God I'd love to have them back.
It would be quite nuce to have some politicians in charge who understand that decisions have consequences, certainly. I hesitate to call Starmer and Reeves "fucking idiots" - because they must have some sort of intellect to have got where they are in life. Perhaps Labour being in opposition for so long has just got them used to reflexively calling for whatever but of left wing fluff makes them feel good like chasing away non doms or giving the Chagos Islands to *cough* Mauritius or taxing private schools without it mattering what happens as a result.
Taxing education stands ignorantly out as the very worst of it
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
I mean seriously. How stupid would she need to be for you to recognise it? No chance in Texas, and no relevance to the result.
More likely her campaign aren't convinced her presense is a net positive.
So:
When Trump makes a stop in California, it's a sign of his strength. And when Harris makes a stop in Texas, it's a sign of her weakness.
Here's the thing: the candidates have no better idea than we do of what's happening.
We don't know. It's entirely possible - as Nate Cohn at NYTimes suggests - that the past vote weighting means the Republican vote share is overstated. It's also possible that the reasons for Dems being easier to find in 2020 (i.e. they were more likely to be locked down at home than Republicans) simply don't apply this year.
And finally, it's perfectly possible that "Shy Trump" simply is no longer a thing.
We don't know.
What we do know is that the data from Nevada in terms of early voting looks very good for the Republicans, while the data from Georgia looks similarly decent for the Democrats.
I've never said Trump stopping in stupid states is a sign of strength - I was just despairing of a poster I consider sensible on British politics posting bilge about American.
Is there evidence of the Georgia early vote being good for 1 candidate or the other - aside from the general trend of R early vote being up more, I'm not sure a subsample of a poll which has them tied constitutes 'what we know' to the same extent as the declared party registrations elsewhere.
Sure: the highest early turnout counties - all well into the 30s are - are in the Atlanta metropolitan area. And, women outnumber men 56:44 in early voting.
Both of those, I would have thought, are positives for the Democrats.
Except, women love Trump. He tell us so. Must be because he makes them feel secure...
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
What the fuck is she doing there? Trump went to Colorado, Harris to Texas: why? Why? Why are these people acting so stupidly? Make the world make sense, somebody...
Senate race presumably?
Yep. A very competitve race, made so by the Republican being probably the biggest asshole in the Senate.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Shame about the ducks.
Since the idea of HS2 is that it has few stations on it, that wouldn't help. Expanding Bletchley would be the smarter move.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We know what's going on. Canada is a year out from an election, they're getting hammered in the opinion polls, and parts of the party are in open rebellion.
On topic - The problem with that is the fact that while immigration plays really well for the Reps their lead on the economy has crumbled over the last couple of months. It is generally single figures if that. Some serious pollsters have Harris AHEAD on the economy. Meanwhile on most of the minor issues Harris has massive leads.
The thing to watch is the turn-out. If its a base election then Trump wins. If it is a big turn-out election (especially in the battleground states and especially among women) then he is in deep trouble. At the moment it looks more like the latter. Pushing 30 million votes already cast with over a week before polling day
We've been here before in 2004. There was a big turn out and Kerry was ahead in the polls. Then it turned out that the big turnout was for Bush...
In other words... Nobody ever knows anything. Certainly not at campaign HQ.
The scraps we are getting don't work, because they're not random samples. Even the early voting data doesn't help, because we can't tell if it's new voters or people deciding not to queue up on the day this time.
We know about as much as they did in the Vortex round on The Adventure Game. And we don't even have a green cheese roll.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Shame about the ducks.
There's a lot of space at Calvert landfill site.
It's really weird to think that the northernmost outpost of the London Underground was not too far away from there.
Party registration of ballots cast: Rep 48 Dem 46 Oth 6
If these voters have actually voted Harris 54, Trump 45 then that would surely be an absolutely brilliant result for Harris and imply (if trend continues) that she was on course for a landslide win.
Almost makes you wonder if there's a simpler explanation...
Poor polling samples. Reliance on past voter ID means a huge under-sampling of those registered for the first time in 2024. There's a mountain of evidence of women registering - and early voting.
The recent polling versus actual results in, for example, recent special elections shows a woeful outcome for the pollsters, where they are frequently under-sampling Democrats by 10-15% versus actual results.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Shame about the ducks.
Though with no station between London and Brum, they would only be able to wave as it passes.
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
What the fuck is she doing there? Trump went to Colorado, Harris to Texas: why? Why? Why are these people acting so stupidly? Make the world make sense, somebody...
Senate race presumably?
Yep. A very competitve race, made so by the Republican being probably the biggest asshole in the Senate.
Now that twat from New Jersey has gone, perhaps.
Although if Kari Lake somehow wins in Arizona...
Trump better hope for split-ticket voting there...
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Getting ready for the outflow of Americans after Trump/Harris (delete as appropriate) triumphs next month.
If Trump won you could see some Democrats moving to Canada, even Polievre would be better for them than him, they might even come to the UK given it is also English speaking and a developed country and has a centre left government (Australia also an option on that front).
For Trump voters however there is nowhere more rightwing in the developed western world to go than the USA, though a few of them in blue or purple states if Polievre got in in Canada might try Alberta for 4 years
Argentina?
Possibly though not as wealthy as Alberta, Italy under Meloni might be another option or if Jewish Israel under Netanyahu
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Getting ready for the outflow of Americans after Trump/Harris (delete as appropriate) triumphs next month.
If Trump won you could see some Democrats moving to Canada, even Polievre would be better for them than him, they might even come to the UK given it is also English speaking and a developed country and has a centre left government (Australia also an option on that front).
For Trump voters however there is nowhere more rightwing in the developed western world to go than the USA, though a few of them in blue or purple states if Polievre got in in Canada might try Alberta for 4 years
Argentina?
Possibly though not as wealthy as Alberta, Italy under Meloni might be another option or if Jewish Israel under Netanyahu
Israel is not going to be under Netanyahu for much longer.
Whether he'll be replaced by somebody as extreme is another question.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
Does there though? Don't people have to need and want to go somewhere to make putting trains there a worthwhile expense?
I love the idea of Northern Powerhouse Rail because I would love to see the economy of the North prosper again, but I have come to realise that mobility to and from these places to other places is of limited usefulness when the engines of prosperity there are switched off.
These places need planning sorted, tax sorted, regulation sorted, and the cost of energy sorted, to enable them to recover the economic activity they once had. Once that has happened, and it suddenly becomes clear that the lacemakers of Nottingham need more freight services to ship their lace to the bootmakers of Northampton, then not only will the case for new infrastructure be made, the money will also be there.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We know what's going on. Canada is a year out from an election, they're getting hammered in the opinion polls, and parts of the party are in open rebellion.
Very different from our pre-election polls. That shows direct major party swing, rather than leakage to minor parties.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We know what's going on. Canada is a year out from an election, they're getting hammered in the opinion polls, and parts of the party are in open rebellion.
Very different from our pre-election polls. That shows direct major party swing, rather than leakage to minor parties.
By all accounts Pierre Poilievre is a political phenomenon.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We know what's going on. Canada is a year out from an election, they're getting hammered in the opinion polls, and parts of the party are in open rebellion.
Very different from our pre-election polls. That shows direct major party swing, rather than leakage to minor parties.
Yep, though I don't know Canada well enough to be able to tell if they're properly different or just lagging behind where we are.
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
I mean seriously. How stupid would she need to be for you to recognise it? No chance in Texas, and no relevance to the result.
More likely her campaign aren't convinced her presense is a net positive.
So:
When Trump makes a stop in California, it's a sign of his strength. And when Harris makes a stop in Texas, it's a sign of her weakness.
Here's the thing: the candidates have no better idea than we do of what's happening.
We don't know. It's entirely possible - as Nate Cohn at NYTimes suggests - that the past vote weighting means the Republican vote share is overstated. It's also possible that the reasons for Dems being easier to find in 2020 (i.e. they were more likely to be locked down at home than Republicans) simply don't apply this year.
And finally, it's perfectly possible that "Shy Trump" simply is no longer a thing.
We don't know.
What we do know is that the data from Nevada in terms of early voting looks very good for the Republicans, while the data from Georgia looks similarly decent for the Democrats.
I've never said Trump stopping in stupid states is a sign of strength - I was just despairing of a poster I consider sensible on British politics posting bilge about American.
Is there evidence of the Georgia early vote being good for 1 candidate or the other - aside from the general trend of R early vote being up more, I'm not sure a subsample of a poll which has them tied constitutes 'what we know' to the same extent as the declared party registrations elsewhere.
Sure: the highest early turnout counties - all well into the 30s are - are in the Atlanta metropolitan area. And, women outnumber men 56:44 in early voting.
Both of those, I would have thought, are positives for the Democrats.
Except, women love Trump. He tell us so. Must be because he makes them feel secure...
Yes, a lady loves an excrement infused adult Pamper.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We know what's going on. Canada is a year out from an election, they're getting hammered in the opinion polls, and parts of the party are in open rebellion.
Very different from our pre-election polls. That shows direct major party swing, rather than leakage to minor parties.
By all accounts Pierre Poilievre is a political phenomenon.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
Does there though? Don't people have to need and want to go somewhere to make putting trains there a worthwhile expense?
I love the idea of Northern Powerhouse Rail because I would love to see the economy of the North prosper again, but I have come to realise that mobility to and from these places to other places is of limited usefulness when the engines of prosperity there are switched off.
These places need planning sorted, tax sorted, regulation sorted, and the cost of energy sorted, to enable them to recover the economic activity they once had. Once that has happened, and it suddenly becomes clear that the lacemakers of Nottingham need more freight services to ship their lace to the bootmakers of Northampton, then not only will the case for new infrastructure be made, the money will also be there.
"Does there though? Don't people have to need and want to go somewhere to make putting trains there a worthwhile expense?"
Which is why these things are not just done because people draw lines on maps. In the case of EWR, there are large documents outlining people's travel habits with startpoints, endpoints and all sorts of nodes inbetween. This information is then used to inform where the lines are drawn on the map.
It is all too easy to draw a line on a map between A and B because they're places you like, when people really want to go from A to D and B to E. There must be such documents/analysis for public transport in the wider north, but I haven't seen it.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Shame about the ducks.
Though with no station between London and Brum, they would only be able to wave as it passes.
My modest proposal is a station every 15 miles or so.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We know what's going on. Canada is a year out from an election, they're getting hammered in the opinion polls, and parts of the party are in open rebellion.
Very different from our pre-election polls. That shows direct major party swing, rather than leakage to minor parties.
By all accounts Pierre Poilievre is a political phenomenon.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
It's a road.
You've got to bear in mind that this government has its own prejudices and ideologies, and most of its leadership live in inner cities and don't much care for cars.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I agree. I recall when lefties on here were *very interested* in the alleged argument between Boris and Carrie back in 2019. That turned out to be a massive nothingburger as well.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Shame about the ducks.
Though with no station between London and Brum, they would only be able to wave as it passes.
My modest proposal is a station every 15 miles or so.
Yes, far more useful and would have gained a lot of support along the route.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I agree. I recall when lefties on here were *very interested* in the alleged argument between Boris and Carrie back in 2019. That turned out to be a massive nothingburger as well.
That was slightly different in so much as the police were called to a domestic incident. I may have raised a smile and an eyebrow at the man's chaotic lifestyle. At the time I fell genuinely sorry for Marina but none of it was my business.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Shame about the ducks.
The new town wouldn't get an HS2 stop, what with the new London airport a few miles to the north.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
It's a road.
You've got to bear in mind that this government has its own prejudices and ideologies, and most of its leadership live in inner cities and don't much care for cars.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
We need a new town just about here, where EWR crosses HS2:
Shame about the ducks.
Though with no station between London and Brum, they would only be able to wave as it passes.
My modest proposal is a station every 15 miles or so.
Yes, far more useful and would have gained a lot of support along the route.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I agree. I recall when lefties on here were *very interested* in the alleged argument between Boris and Carrie back in 2019. That turned out to be a massive nothingburger as well.
Sunak and Hunt destroyed HS2. That alone is enough to say they are totally incompetent.
That was their worst decision, and one I vociferously argued against at the time.
However, on everything else?
God I'd love to have them back.
It would be quite nuce to have some politicians in charge who understand that decisions have consequences, certainly. I hesitate to call Starmer and Reeves "fucking idiots" - because they must have some sort of intellect to have got where they are in life. Perhaps Labour being in opposition for so long has just got them used to reflexively calling for whatever but of left wing fluff makes them feel good like chasing away non doms or giving the Chagos Islands to *cough* Mauritius or taxing private schools without it mattering what happens as a result.
They're not stupid but they're poor leaders and politically inept.
They've confused having an ideology with being suited to politics.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
It's a road.
You've got to bear in mind that this government has its own prejudices and ideologies, and most of its leadership live in inner cities and don't much care for cars.
I think it's a more general point. They're quibbling about reinstating the cut parts of HS2. They refuse to commit to the lower Thames crossing.
I think there is a risk that the supposed increase in infrastructure spending is a way to increase current spending by borrowing, and the increased borrowing won't result in increased infrastructure spending, but simply mean that all infrastructure spending is paid for by borrowing, so that there is then more tax revenue available for current expenditure.
I can see why that would be attractive for a Chancellor, but it would be a big mistake. Britain really does need more investment spending.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Until they can work out what the hell is going on?
We know what's going on. Canada is a year out from an election, they're getting hammered in the opinion polls, and parts of the party are in open rebellion.
Canadian political culture is highly erratic, though, and they're known for wildly zig-zagging their votes.
That Conservative lead has a whole year to dissolve.
Sunak and Hunt destroyed HS2. That alone is enough to say they are totally incompetent.
That was their worst decision, and one I vociferously argued against at the time.
However, on everything else?
God I'd love to have them back.
It would be quite nuce to have some politicians in charge who understand that decisions have consequences, certainly. I hesitate to call Starmer and Reeves "fucking idiots" - because they must have some sort of intellect to have got where they are in life. Perhaps Labour being in opposition for so long has just got them used to reflexively calling for whatever but of left wing fluff makes them feel good like chasing away non doms or giving the Chagos Islands to *cough* Mauritius or taxing private schools without it mattering what happens as a result.
Taxing education stands ignorantly out as the very worst of it
I didn't realise this until recently but Rachel Reeves is on the record as saying she favours the abolition of all grammar schools and private schools.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
Scuttlebutt has it that the Bedford-Cambridge section of East-West rail is going to go ahead as well. That'll be *really* expensive.
Excuse the chip, but if they're funding that, they had better be throwing an absolute tankerload of cash at infrastructure in the north.
Cambridge is north.
In its defence, the EWR scheme has been underway for some years, with one phase already open, the first trial train having run on a second the other day (Bicester to Bletchley), leaving a big gap to Cambridge.
But yes, I agree. There needs to be much more public connectivity in general, and in the north. To be frank, an EWR-style scheme at 100 MPH might make more sense than an HS3/4 one, given the physical geometry of the settlements in the north for many journies.
Does there though? Don't people have to need and want to go somewhere to make putting trains there a worthwhile expense?
I love the idea of Northern Powerhouse Rail because I would love to see the economy of the North prosper again, but I have come to realise that mobility to and from these places to other places is of limited usefulness when the engines of prosperity there are switched off.
These places need planning sorted, tax sorted, regulation sorted, and the cost of energy sorted, to enable them to recover the economic activity they once had. Once that has happened, and it suddenly becomes clear that the lacemakers of Nottingham need more freight services to ship their lace to the bootmakers of Northampton, then not only will the case for new infrastructure be made, the money will also be there.
"Does there though? Don't people have to need and want to go somewhere to make putting trains there a worthwhile expense?"
Which is why these things are not just done because people draw lines on maps. In the case of EWR, there are large documents outlining people's travel habits with startpoints, endpoints and all sorts of nodes inbetween. This information is then used to inform where the lines are drawn on the map.
It is all too easy to draw a line on a map between A and B because they're places you like, when people really want to go from A to D and B to E. There must be such documents/analysis for public transport in the wider north, but I haven't seen it.
Sounds very like How we got up the Glenmutchkin Railway ...
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Getting ready for the outflow of Americans after Trump/Harris (delete as appropriate) triumphs next month.
If Trump won you could see some Democrats moving to Canada, even Polievre would be better for them than him, they might even come to the UK given it is also English speaking and a developed country and has a centre left government (Australia also an option on that front).
For Trump voters however there is nowhere more rightwing in the developed western world to go than the USA, though a few of them in blue or purple states if Polievre got in in Canada might try Alberta for 4 years
Argentina?
Possibly though not as wealthy as Alberta, Italy under Meloni might be another option or if Jewish Israel under Netanyahu
Israel is not going to be under Netanyahu for much longer.
Whether he'll be replaced by somebody as extreme is another question.
I've never thought of him as extreme. Dodgy, corrupt, sell-out, self-centred, egotistical, indecisive, shallow, .... Many other words come to mind.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
It's a road.
You've got to bear in mind that this government has its own prejudices and ideologies, and most of its leadership live in inner cities and don't much care for cars.
I think it's a more general point. They're quibbling about reinstating the cut parts of HS2. They refuse to commit to the lower Thames crossing.
I think there is a risk that the supposed increase in infrastructure spending is a way to increase current spending by borrowing, and the increased borrowing won't result in increased infrastructure spending, but simply mean that all infrastructure spending is paid for by borrowing, so that there is then more tax revenue available for current expenditure.
I can see why that would be attractive for a Chancellor, but it would be a big mistake. Britain really does need more investment spending.
Want to know why the Japanese sit on the floor a lot? ie in some restaurants? Traditional ryokans? Quite often at home?
It’s because that’s what the Tang Chinese did in 700AD when Tang China was considered the apex of civilisation and the most influential culture (not least, by the Japanese)
Then the Chinese discovered chairs and moved on, but the Japanese never did
Its like British people still sending every third son to a monastery because that was the fashion in Charlemagne’s France
Quick figures I can find suggest that capital expenditure by government departments was ~£180bn in 2023-24. The budget deficit is ~£80bn. So if you increase the budget deficit by £50bn you could still argue that all the budget deficit was being spent on "investment" spending, because £130bn < £180bn, but you then have an extra £50bn to spend on whatever you like.
I think I'm going to want to take a very careful look at the budget documents to work out whether there is a genuine increase in investment spending, or if it's an accounting trick.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
It's a road.
You've got to bear in mind that this government has its own prejudices and ideologies, and most of its leadership live in inner cities and don't much care for cars.
Harris making a campaign stop in Houston, Texas tomorrow.
Confident move!
What the fuck is she doing there? Trump went to Colorado, Harris to Texas: why? Why? Why are these people acting so stupidly? Make the world make sense, somebody...
Senate race presumably?
Yep. A very competitve race, made so by the Republican being probably the biggest asshole in the Senate.
It’s also a story which will get coverage. The downside in minimal, and the upside, a fractionally better chance of holding onto the Senate.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
Really? Her actions were all about herself, with no regard for the child. Putting a defenceless newborn in a plastic bag inside a cereal box in a suitcase? Come on.
We’re going to significantly reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada for the next two years. This is temporary — to pause our population growth and let our economy catch up.
We have to get the system working right for all Canadians.
Getting ready for the outflow of Americans after Trump/Harris (delete as appropriate) triumphs next month.
If Trump won you could see some Democrats moving to Canada, even Polievre would be better for them than him, they might even come to the UK given it is also English speaking and a developed country and has a centre left government (Australia also an option on that front).
For Trump voters however there is nowhere more rightwing in the developed western world to go than the USA, though a few of them in blue or purple states if Polievre got in in Canada might try Alberta for 4 years
Argentina?
Possibly though not as wealthy as Alberta, Italy under Meloni might be another option or if Jewish Israel under Netanyahu
Israel is not going to be under Netanyahu for much longer.
Whether he'll be replaced by somebody as extreme is another question.
I've never thought of him as extreme. Dodgy, corrupt, sell-out, self-centred, egotistical, indecisive, shallow, .... Many other words come to mind.
Well, don’t get me wrong, he’s all those things, but he’s definitely on the hard right too.
He was a Modi/Putin figure before either of those were a thing.
It is also what Sandy Rentool thinks - he flatly refused to acknowledge my question to him about whether Major's Ministers should have had their 'privacy respected' in the way he suggested Sir Keir's should be.
I'm old enough to remember scandalous rumours about Harold Wilson and Marcia Williams that penetrated as far as distant North Wales. By 'scandalous', of course, I mean 'the usual thing'. Say what you like about Henry VIII, at least he put an end to rule by celibate clerics.
If the Govt is now going to borrow lots more to fund investment, why has the Stonehenge tunnel been cancelled?
That's only £1.7bn total - which appears a very small fraction of the supposed additional investment spending now planned.
It was said earlier that the Govt will now invest an additional £50bn per year - that figure looks way too high to be correct.
But surely Stonehenge could have been funded - it would have taken approx 4 years to build so only approx £400m per year for 4 years.
It's a road.
You've got to bear in mind that this government has its own prejudices and ideologies, and most of its leadership live in inner cities and don't much care for cars.
I think it's a more general point. They're quibbling about reinstating the cut parts of HS2. They refuse to commit to the lower Thames crossing.
I think there is a risk that the supposed increase in infrastructure spending is a way to increase current spending by borrowing, and the increased borrowing won't result in increased infrastructure spending, but simply mean that all infrastructure spending is paid for by borrowing, so that there is then more tax revenue available for current expenditure.
I can see why that would be attractive for a Chancellor, but it would be a big mistake. Britain really does need more investment spending.
That's exactly my fear.
It goes to State largesse, not investment.
To some extent the state can rewrite the economics of railways and roads by decreeing new development wherever they choose, so they don't have to join the dots of existing travel patterns in order to satisfy current demand. Another development opportunity, after Claydon New Town (infra) is the land between Birmingham Interchange and Nuneaton, which could easily support a couple of million people. Problem being, of course, that it requires intergenerational multiparty commitment to bring it off.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
Even if one absolutely despises Starmer and his politics this from the vile Staines is beyond contempt.
I don't really agree. I think if there were a story concerning the PM's family life that proved it to be significantly at odds with its billing, it would absolutely be in the public interest for it to be known. Do you think it was right that Boris's indiscretions became public knowledge? Do you think it was right that John Major's Ministers' indiscretions became public and his Government gained a sleazy reputation? Or should these matters have been kept from the public and the privacy of those concerned shielded?
What Guido has created is a whispering campaign. Would you want a complete bastard like Staines shit stirring inside your marriage? If there are Russian violinists involved it is in the public interest, if it is just that Mrs Starmer no longer wants to participate in the stressful circus surrounding her lingerie I don't blame her for wanting to dip out.
I suggest you DYOR - I wouldn't dream of commenting.
The left weren't too bothered accusing David Cameron of revolting things nor dreaming up things about George Osbornes wife.(cf Derek Draper iirc) Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.
Comments
If I'm incorrect, and the financial gain is just being pushed as a subsidiary hope, so long as the perceived wrongdoing is all appropriately punished, then show me the volunteers to help provide PPE in the next crisis
Both of those, I would have thought, are positives for the Democrats.
Georgia does not release early voting by party registration. So those CNN numbers will be "implied" by a survey/opinion poll, they aren't actuals.
It's a view, I suppose.
For Trump voters however there is nowhere more rightwing in the developed western world to go than the USA, though a few of them in blue or purple states if Polievre got in in Canada might try Alberta for 4 years
This looks like they're desperately hoping to dig up something about Con MPs (or more likely exMPs), and probably a particular Lady
I expect it to be an expensive vendetta to spend public money on
I hesitate to call Starmer and Reeves "fucking idiots" - because they must have some sort of intellect to have got where they are in life. Perhaps Labour being in opposition for so long has just got them used to reflexively calling for whatever but of left wing fluff makes them feel good like chasing away non doms or giving the Chagos Islands to *cough* Mauritius or taxing private schools without it mattering what happens as a result.
The thing to watch is the turn-out. If its a base election then Trump wins. If it is a big turn-out election (especially in the battleground states and especially among women) then he is in deep trouble. At the moment it looks more like the latter. Pushing 30 million votes already cast with over a week before polling day
Looking at the polls Obama and to a lesser extent Walz generally have higher approval ratings with US voters than Harris does, so if she does win it will likely be with them dragging her over the line. Obama to get the black vote out, Walz to get the white union blue collar vote out while she focuses on white women graduates which is the only voter category she clearly appeals to relative to the average Dem (she is also being sent to DC in the next few days for a pro choice rally)
Shame about the ducks.
That now counts as one for Trump with the changes in methodology.
Although if Kari Lake somehow wins in Arizona...
The scraps we are getting don't work, because they're not random samples. Even the early voting data doesn't help, because we can't tell if it's new voters or people deciding not to queue up on the day this time.
We know about as much as they did in the Vortex round on The Adventure Game. And we don't even have a green cheese roll.
It's really weird to think that the northernmost outpost of the London Underground was not too far away from there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Tramway
The recent polling versus actual results in, for example, recent special elections shows a woeful outcome for the pollsters, where they are frequently under-sampling Democrats by 10-15% versus actual results.
Whether he'll be replaced by somebody as extreme is another question.
I love the idea of Northern Powerhouse Rail because I would love to see the economy of the North prosper again, but I have come to realise that mobility to and from these places to other places is of limited usefulness when the engines of prosperity there are switched off.
These places need planning sorted, tax sorted, regulation sorted, and the cost of energy sorted, to enable them to recover the economic activity they once had. Once that has happened, and it suddenly becomes clear that the lacemakers of Nottingham need more freight services to ship their lace to the bootmakers of Northampton, then not only will the case for new infrastructure be made, the money will also be there.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/osborne-takes-a-pop-at-jenricks-echr-plan/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/24/coventry-student-hid-baby-cereal-box-convicted-murder
Which is why these things are not just done because people draw lines on maps. In the case of EWR, there are large documents outlining people's travel habits with startpoints, endpoints and all sorts of nodes inbetween. This information is then used to inform where the lines are drawn on the map.
It is all too easy to draw a line on a map between A and B because they're places you like, when people really want to go from A to D and B to E. There must be such documents/analysis for public transport in the wider north, but I haven't seen it.
https://x.com/JAHeale/status/1792995468382806249
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13973481/daniel-hannan-tory-leadership-robert-jenrick-conservative-party.html
You've got to bear in mind that this government has its own prejudices and ideologies, and most of its leadership live in inner cities and don't much care for cars.
I'm currently using Lescure from Normandy (via Waitrose)
Where do you get homegrown unpasteurised butter?
They've confused having an ideology with being suited to politics.
It's not the same thing.
I think there is a risk that the supposed increase in infrastructure spending is a way to increase current spending by borrowing, and the increased borrowing won't result in increased infrastructure spending, but simply mean that all infrastructure spending is paid for by borrowing, so that there is then more tax revenue available for current expenditure.
I can see why that would be attractive for a Chancellor, but it would be a big mistake. Britain really does need more investment spending.
That Conservative lead has a whole year to dissolve.
https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~odlyzko/rrsources/glen6.pdf
It goes to State largesse, not investment.
It’s because that’s what the Tang Chinese did in 700AD when Tang China was considered the apex of civilisation and the most influential culture (not least, by the Japanese)
Then the Chinese discovered chairs and moved on, but the Japanese never did
Its like British people still sending every third son to a monastery because that was the fashion in Charlemagne’s France
I think I'm going to want to take a very careful look at the budget documents to work out whether there is a genuine increase in investment spending, or if it's an accounting trick.
Hopefully they won't tax trimmers too much.
The downside in minimal, and the upside, a fractionally better chance of holding onto the Senate.
Support for providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came here as children and have not committed a crime:
Support: 69%
Oppose: 21%
YouGov / Oct 22, 2024 / n=1615
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1849119692557848782
It’s a shame Trump would, and has sabotaged any such deal.
He was a Modi/Putin figure before either of those were a thing.
This is what it’s like to be prime minister. You are the subject of relentless gossip and scrutiny, much of it quite nasty
It’s like lefties think all the shit they threw at Tories is somehow unfair if done in return to Labour, now in office
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1849242818767937571
But I've just realised that I should be able to get both. One of my friends has a girlfriend whose parents are local dairy farmers
If anyone will know..
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-york-times-publishes
More Republicans than Independents between 18-29 support imposing an arms embargo on Israel
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1849468399719502040
Some of the things Labour did were despicable... which I won't even mention.
As ye sew,so shall ye reap.