The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
You need to be within about 20 miles to be threaten by artillery. It’s about having a reserve so that when send them to Eastern Europe, Putin shits his pants.
Yep it's not just Trump. Putin also needs facing up to. And Xi for that matter. The world's three biggest arsenals (inc nuclear) in the hands of Authoritarian Nationalistic Strongmen. Perilous times.
The opposite of that is that all three enjoy their wealth, power and privilege to such a degree that they probably don't want to spend the rest of their lives in a ratty concrete dungeon eating tinned beans. They will not push the big red button (I hope).
Whereas I can quite imagine nuclear war happening as the result of low level bureaucracy. "Oh, form 187-B? To launch a nuclear strike on Moscow? Well, it does look rather like form 187-C, to apply for a parking permit in Woking. But it's not my job to check, so I'll just punch the nuclear codes into the firing mechanism and press the big red button..."
In other words I don't think any one person is mad enough to start a nuclear war, but I can quite imagine one starting because the *process* demands it.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
I like the concept of a pet but not if it's going to generate four-figure bills.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 45m Why no Cotton or Pompeo? Because they aren't election deniers, and are pro-Ukraine. The plan: Susie Wiles as WH COS to run operations and pat establishment types on the head, while Vance/Don Jr./Tucker/Stephen Miller staff up a full-on America First/Project 2025 administration.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Happened to us on the Byford Dolphin drilling rig about 20 years ago. Drilling in the Norwegian North Sea and we were all called to muster as a freight ship was steaming directly towards us and failing to answer any hails. They scrambled choppers to get us all off whilst the Norwegian navy sent out a chopper and landed a team on the vessel. They diverted it (it was inside our 500m exclusion zone by then and too late to stop it but as it turned out it would have just missed us by a few metres) and afterwards found the crew all asleep. They had failed to check the updated navigation hazards and didn't realise there was a mobile drilling unit right on their course.
I worked with an ex-LNG tanker captain. He used to watch on the radar when he announced on the radio that 100 kilotons of fun was coming through.
He said it was remarkable how everyone woke up and got out of the way.
More or less did a bit on how long it takes to turn around and oil tanker because it is used as a term for something that takes a long time to do. Apparently it is just 3 minutes. So next time someone uses that saying you can reply 'That quick eh?'
Plus turning isn’t like turning in a car. The ship kind of slides sideways while turning…
One ex-tanker captain in the company was said to have put the wheel over, hard, as a response to an Iranian speedboat threatening his ship during the Tanker War in the 80s. Slammed into them sideways, at 15 knots, so they said….
Norwegian bloke. Had done the Murmansk convoys as a boy, according to company folklore.
The way I park it might as well be as if I was driving a supertanker. (The way my neighbours park is seemingly like supertankers at the dodgems)
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
I like the concept of a pet but not if it's going to generate four-figure bills.
You have insurance. We only pay the first £110, but the premiums are expensive and they have you over a barrel because if you move to another insurer the new one won't cover existing conditions.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Happened to us on the Byford Dolphin drilling rig about 20 years ago. Drilling in the Norwegian North Sea and we were all called to muster as a freight ship was steaming directly towards us and failing to answer any hails. They scrambled choppers to get us all off whilst the Norwegian navy sent out a chopper and landed a team on the vessel. They diverted it (it was inside our 500m exclusion zone by then and too late to stop it but as it turned out it would have just missed us by a few metres) and afterwards found the crew all asleep. They had failed to check the updated navigation hazards and didn't realise there was a mobile drilling unit right on their course.
I worked with an ex-LNG tanker captain. He used to watch on the radar when he announced on the radio that 100 kilotons of fun was coming through.
He said it was remarkable how everyone woke up and got out of the way.
More or less did a bit on how long it takes to turn around and oil tanker because it is used as a term for something that takes a long time to do. Apparently it is just 3 minutes. So next time someone uses that saying you can reply 'That quick eh?'
Plus turning isn’t like turning in a car. The ship kind of slides sideways while turning…
One ex-tanker captain in the company was said to have put the wheel over, hard, as a response to an Iranian speedboat threatening his ship during the Tanker War in the 80s. Slammed into them sideways, at 15 knots, so they said….
Norwegian bloke. Had done the Murmansk convoys as a boy, according to company folklore.
The way I park it might as well be as if I was driving a supertanker. (The way my neighbours park is seemingly like supertankers at the dodgems)
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
You need to be within about 20 miles to be threaten by artillery. It’s about having a reserve so that when send them to Eastern Europe, Putin shits his pants.
Yep it's not just Trump. Putin also needs facing up to. And Xi for that matter. The world's three biggest arsenals (inc nuclear) in the hands of Authoritarian Nationalistic Strongmen. Perilous times.
The opposite of that is that all three enjoy their wealth, power and privilege to such a degree that they probably don't want to spend the rest of their lives in a ratty concrete dungeon eating tinned beans. They will not push the big red button (I hope).
Whereas I can quite imagine nuclear war happening as the result of low level bureaucracy. "Oh, form 187-B? To launch a nuclear strike on Moscow? Well, it does look rather like form 187-C, to apply for a parking permit in Woking. But it's not my job to check, so I'll just punch the nuclear codes into the firing mechanism and press the big red button..."
In other words I don't think any one person is mad enough to start a nuclear war, but I can quite imagine one starting because the *process* demands it.
There are any number of checks and balances in the command and control of all the nuclear powers (examples like Petrov wouldn't happen now). You're right in all the above "strongmen" enjoy the finer things of life (as do we all) and these end with the first missile. I suspect they've also been told in no uncertain terms the REAL impact of a global nuclear war (not even what was shown on Threads for example).
There's a dance about all this - as it often was between 1945 and 1989, it'll either be conflict by proxy or conflict within strict lines of engagement - not good for those doing the fighting and dying but okay for the rest of us.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
With his own tartan. Although, one based around orange might not look great....
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
Taxidermists are less expensive .
They're awful as house-pets though. They're not cuddly, unresponsive to petting, and keep trying to escape.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
This is my response to those who say the country is poor and declining. If we have money to spend on pets, we're hardly poor. Yes, there is relative poverty in this country, no question, but absolute poverty, not really.
When Mrs Stodge and I first moved to East Ham more than twenty years ago, you didn't see many dogs or cats (yes, I know, cue the old restaurant gags about finding a dog collar in the doner kebab) but now you see more families with more pets. In rural Derbyshire, nearly everyone seems to have a dog - there are many retired couples whose children have long since flown the nest and I was left musing on vet fees vs winter fuel allowance.
In Belper, the eateries go out of their way to say they are "dog friendly" - they used to in East Ham as well but I don't think it meant quite the same.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
Taxidermists are less expensive .
They're awful as house-pets though. They're not cuddly, unresponsive to petting, and keep trying to escape.
If any PBers are married to one, you may have a problem here ...
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
Taxidermists are less expensive .
They're awful as house-pets though. They're not cuddly, unresponsive to petting, and keep trying to escape.
I have some pet bonsai mountains. They just need a little watering, once every few thousand years.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
This is my response to those who say the country is poor and declining. If we have money to spend on pets, we're hardly poor. Yes, there is relative poverty in this country, no question, but absolute poverty, not really.
When Mrs Stodge and I first moved to East Ham more than twenty years ago, you didn't see many dogs or cats (yes, I know, cue the old restaurant gags about finding a dog collar in the doner kebab) but now you see more families with more pets. In rural Derbyshire, nearly everyone seems to have a dog - there are many retired couples whose children have long since flown the nest and I was left musing on vet fees vs winter fuel allowance.
In Belper, the eateries go out of their way to say they are "dog friendly" - they used to in East Ham as well but I don't think it meant quite the same.
Unlike other places just about every shop in Southwold is dog friendly, because it seems mandatory to own a Cockapoo. Our dog being a Sproodle obviously feels superior.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
Taxidermists are less expensive .
They're awful as house-pets though. They're not cuddly, unresponsive to petting, and keep trying to escape.
If any PBers are married to one, you may have a problem here ...
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
My mum once made the mistake of throwing the damsons that she used to make damson gin onto the compost heap. Her dogs rather liked them…
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
Taxidermists are less expensive .
They're awful as house-pets though. They're not cuddly, unresponsive to petting, and keep trying to escape.
That took me a very long time to get. Then I did a lot of giggling.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
My mum once made the mistake of throwing the damsons that she used to make damson gin onto the compost heap. Her dogs rather liked them…
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
You need to be within about 20 miles to be threaten by artillery. It’s about having a reserve so that when send them to Eastern Europe, Putin shits his pants.
Yep it's not just Trump. Putin also needs facing up to. And Xi for that matter. The world's three biggest arsenals (inc nuclear) in the hands of Authoritarian Nationalistic Strongmen. Perilous times.
The opposite of that is that all three enjoy their wealth, power and privilege to such a degree that they probably don't want to spend the rest of their lives in a ratty concrete dungeon eating tinned beans. They will not push the big red button (I hope).
Whereas I can quite imagine nuclear war happening as the result of low level bureaucracy. "Oh, form 187-B? To launch a nuclear strike on Moscow? Well, it does look rather like form 187-C, to apply for a parking permit in Woking. But it's not my job to check, so I'll just punch the nuclear codes into the firing mechanism and press the big red button..."
In other words I don't think any one person is mad enough to start a nuclear war, but I can quite imagine one starting because the *process* demands it.
There are any number of checks and balances in the command and control of all the nuclear powers (examples like Petrov wouldn't happen now). You're right in all the above "strongmen" enjoy the finer things of life (as do we all) and these end with the first missile. I suspect they've also been told in no uncertain terms the REAL impact of a global nuclear war (not even what was shown on Threads for example).
There's a dance about all this - as it often was between 1945 and 1989, it'll either be conflict by proxy or conflict within strict lines of engagement - not good for those doing the fighting and dying but okay for the rest of us.
You are right that I was thinking of Petrov in my previous post. It took one man to use his intelligence and go against the *process*. While I'd hope lessons have been learned, my basic fear of nuclear war comes from the 'just following orders' problem. If the actual order is initiated by a set process (rather than a human being who, as previously stated, doesn't want to go from being a strongman to eating beans in a bunker), then I can imagine it being followed to its conclusion.
One hopes that the necessary checks are in place, but if I were betting on the likely causes of a nuclear apocalypse, I would pick bureaucracy and process over dick-waving dictatorship every time.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
Rabbitnomics is a thing you know. It’s founded in what Lady Thatcher actually done to be a legendary leader.
Bank of England and Sunak’s government knew who were profiteering and ripping customers off under cover of inflation period, were frustrated by it. If they had got back in, and obviously needed to raise money straight away - headroom for pre election giveaways stolen from future years departmental spending - who do we think they would have gone after, how do we think they would have raised it?
There’s a second take on BoE, Sunak’s government lobbying of the profiteers to play fair with struggling households, from the Daily Mail, attacking Hunt and Sunak for doing it. Tory MPs lined up to join the Mail to criticise it.
The Conservative Party and the Tory Press are not Thatcherite anymore. Thatcherite economics would struggle in this environment today. I was musing why, what is different now?
is it money? MPs attacking Hunt and Sunak for oh so gently saying please don’t profiteer right now people are struggling - are these MPs lobbied and rewarded for doing so, is this how UK democracy now works?
Really, has the energy price cap reduced the cost of energy would you say?
You have claimed you are Thatcherite LuckyGuy - Thatcher and Thatcherism and Thatcherite economics would have been on the side of households during historic disaster for household incomes. What Sunak and Hunt gently asked for, and got attacked by own side for doing so, I think Thatcherism would have implemented waving away all the bleatings.
Cosplay Thatcher PM Liz Truss, refused to windfall tax the energy profits - even though Lady Thatcher actually done just that, waving away all the bleatings.
Something has changed. Something is different. Is it you, and how you now see things?
I wasn’t even alive when Lady Thatcher ran the country, but seem to have more understanding what made her great than those of you who were there.
A lot of words not to answer a question that we both know the answer to - the energy price cap has not reduced the price of energy, it has vastly increased the price of energy and reduced competition - the best way to get prices down. Just as rent controls and every other form of price control *always* push prices up.
We have one of the most competitive food industries in the world - hardly any country has the quality of food we get for the price we do, and long may it continue without politicians getting their incompetent statist paws on it. Or would you prefer to see our food provision handled the same way as our health provision?
How does an account, designed to spread right wing misinformation, which only started in October 2024 already have 37.5k followers?
The Tweets of this account end up at the top of any Tweet, whether it is political or not. Tell me there’s not something dodgy going on here.
Bots.
Isn’t this something Elon said he’d stop? And why is this allowed to happen?
Why is it allowed to happen? My guess is because of how technically challenging it is to differentiate when someone registers. Twitter are not yet asking for ID when you sign up, and even that could be circumvented.
How does an account, designed to spread right wing misinformation, which only started in October 2024 already have 37.5k followers?
The Tweets of this account end up at the top of any Tweet, whether it is political or not. Tell me there’s not something dodgy going on here.
Bots.
Isn’t this something Elon said he’d stop? And why is this allowed to happen?
Why is it allowed to happen? My guess is because of how technically challenging it is to differentiate when someone registers. Twitter are not yet asking for ID when you sign up, and even that could be circumvented.
There are also accounts that are a bit of both. Remember that Uk politics one that was run by a student at Warwick university. They cracked the code for engagement, they managed to get noticed by all the journos and it was a rocket ship in a no time. But the majority of their posting and getting in on threads, was definitely automated scripted, but they sprinkled in enough human posts to play the algorithm. Eventually they got the ban hammer.
Before they got ban hammer, they had already repeated the trick with other accounts, if i remember a sports one and a gossip one.
Why are we still making this big "remembrance" fuss about all the losers who died fighting in wars?
Black History has just had a whole month, and you are grudging 2 minutes?
Didn't even *notice* BHM.
Poppies, on the other hand ... local memorial, Scout Hut, etc., but then I was already contemplating my grandfather's photos, found in the family photos which I am finally sorting out, and wondering what his Great War career had been that I had never known about. No record, because bombed in the 1940s, at least the main MoD ones. Tentative ID from the glengarry badge as a KOSB but then why is the infantryman photographed with a Hotchkiss Portable LMG (for cavalry)?
How does an account, designed to spread right wing misinformation, which only started in October 2024 already have 37.5k followers?
The Tweets of this account end up at the top of any Tweet, whether it is political or not. Tell me there’s not something dodgy going on here.
It's in the far right niche, which Musk promotes. It's got some prominent followers (eg Fr Calvin Robinson), who may be promoting. It's got a (I assume) paid for blue tick, which gets you onto various system feeds. Judging on 900+ tweets since some point in October, it's likely to a bot. It's heavily focuses on "patriotic", which is a dog whistle for Tommy Robinson type nationalism.
It is Musk's twitter; of course something dodgy is going on .
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
O2 Christmassy ad telling me that millions of UK households are living in ‘data poverty’, not heard that one before. Great that the marketing wankers are getting a turn out of poverty.
I'm suffering from Baileys Irish Cream poverty atm.
O2 Christmassy ad telling me that millions of UK households are living in ‘data poverty’, not heard that one before. Great that the marketing wankers are getting a turn out of poverty.
I'm suffering from Baileys Irish Cream poverty atm.
The UK's Gin coefficient is getting worse under Starmer.
How does an account, designed to spread right wing misinformation, which only started in October 2024 already have 37.5k followers?
The Tweets of this account end up at the top of any Tweet, whether it is political or not. Tell me there’s not something dodgy going on here.
Stop using it.
Good advice and especially as no amount of complaining is going to have any effect on Musk
These next 4 years are going to be a roller coaster with lots of controversy and the US electorate have made Trump master of all he surveys
Maybe if the Democrats had addressed the issues that ordinary people felt rather than relying on celebrity endorsement and no policies they would have seen a better result
I am feeling a little bit more hopeful about my bet for AZSenate. Lake is pulling it back but at 83.7% counted and a gap of around 34,325 she *may* not be closing the gap fast enough. Will know more tomorrow and until then this is just a guess
Now 84 percent of votes have been counted.
Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,413,206 49.5 Kari Lake GOP 1,381,021 48.4 Eduardo Quintana GRN 59,595 2.1
Lead now 32,185.
Now 87.1 percent of votes have been counted.
Votes received and percentages of total vote Candidate Votes Pct. Ruben Gallego DEM 1,470,600 49.7 Kari Lake GOP 1,425,546 48.2 Eduardo Quintana GRN 62,779 2.1
Lead now 45,054
I may have pulled this off.
If you need a visualisation of this, think of the sentry guns in Aliens. Although Kari Lake's xenomorphs are coming down the corridor, Gallego's sentry guns *might* be holding them off...
How does an account, designed to spread right wing misinformation, which only started in October 2024 already have 37.5k followers?
The Tweets of this account end up at the top of any Tweet, whether it is political or not. Tell me there’s not something dodgy going on here.
It's in the far right niche, which Musk promotes. It's got some prominent followers (eg Fr Calvin Robinson), who may be promoting. It's got a (I assume) paid for blue tick, which gets you onto various system feeds. Judging on 900+ tweets since some point in October, it's likely to a bot. It's heavily focuses on "patriotic", which is a dog whistle for Tommy Robinson type nationalism.
It is Musk's twitter; of course something dodgy is going on .
What's going on at Spurs... losing at home to the tractor boys......
Spursy going to spursy....
Tractor Boys pulling away.
I heard that Ed Sheeran was so disillusioned by Ipswich this season that if they had lost he was handing in his season ticket and becoming an Ex-tractor Fan.
What's going on at Spurs... losing at home to the tractor boys......
Spursy going to spursy....
Tractor Boys pulling away.
I heard that Ed Sheeran was so disillusioned by Ipswich this season that if they had lost he was handing in his season ticket and becoming an Ex-tractor Fan.
He was watching at Spurs apparently, so maybe he’s changing his mind.
A Labour-run council has come under fire for planning a children’s park with a dedicated area for girls to sit and chat
Shouldn’t they be delighted? They know what a woman is.
It's not the council. It was the contractors planning the park. The council have already ditched the idea. But it's from the Telegraph, so they don't care about the facts.
A Labour-run council has come under fire for planning a children’s park with a dedicated area for girls to sit and chat
Shouldn’t they be delighted? They know what a woman is.
It's not the council. It was the contractors planning the park. The council have already ditched the idea. But it's from the Telegraph, so they don't care about the facts.
The Telegraph should be delighted that contractors can say what a woman is?
After Keir Starmer correctly defined it during GE24 the Telegraph have won.
A Labour-run council has come under fire for planning a children’s park with a dedicated area for girls to sit and chat
Shouldn’t they be delighted? They know what a woman is.
It's not the council. It was the contractors planning the park. The council have already ditched the idea. But it's from the Telegraph, so they don't care about the facts.
The Telegraph has turned into the click farm rather like that dodgy "politics for all" twitter account i.e. the headline is deliberately selective or they tweet out the selective bit. And then they stick the boring uninteresting "facts" on the lower half of the article (behind their paywall).
It can't be doing their brand any good. Besides the world is rather shifting, as shown but the Times, NYT, The Athletic, Substack, people who want good coverage, they will actually pay a subscription, which doesn't need to play silly games of click farming engagement.
A Labour-run council has come under fire for planning a children’s park with a dedicated area for girls to sit and chat
Shouldn’t they be delighted? They know what a woman is.
It's not the council. It was the contractors planning the park. The council have already ditched the idea. But it's from the Telegraph, so they don't care about the facts.
Q: How can you easily tell if a news story isn’t true? A: if it’s in the Telegraph
How does an account, designed to spread right wing misinformation, which only started in October 2024 already have 37.5k followers?
The Tweets of this account end up at the top of any Tweet, whether it is political or not. Tell me there’s not something dodgy going on here.
It's in the far right niche, which Musk promotes. It's got some prominent followers (eg Fr Calvin Robinson), who may be promoting. It's got a (I assume) paid for blue tick, which gets you onto various system feeds. Judging on 900+ tweets since some point in October, it's likely to a bot. It's heavily focuses on "patriotic", which is a dog whistle for Tommy Robinson type nationalism.
It is Musk's twitter; of course something dodgy is going on .
My own TwiX account has somehow garnered 166 followers despite having never tweeted. Nothing fishy about that.
A Labour-run council has come under fire for planning a children’s park with a dedicated area for girls to sit and chat
Shouldn’t they be delighted? They know what a woman is.
It's not the council. It was the contractors planning the park. The council have already ditched the idea. But it's from the Telegraph, so they don't care about the facts.
The Telegraph has turned into the click farm rather like that dodgy "politics for all" twitter account i.e. the headline is deliberately selective or they tweet out the selective bit. And then they stick the boring uninteresting "facts" on the lower half of the article (behind their paywall).
It can't be doing their brand any good. Besides the world is rather shifting, as shown but the Times, NYT, The Athletic, Substack, people who want good coverage, they will actually pay a subscription, which doesn't need to play silly games of click farming engagement.
You would think so. And yet, there's presumably method in the madness. Either "you think the world is going to hell in a handcart, only we will confirm your suspicions" or "this paper is a rich man's plaything, I'm having fun here".
But the oddness of the Telegraph (though the Times is going downhill pretty badly) sticks out in the UK, which gives us a bit of hope. Have virtually everyone acting that way, cut all the boring "trying to be objective" voices, and you end up with America.
Wealthy Democrats prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars to rent property in London before Trump's inauguration as they flee to the relative safety of Starmer's UK "Donald Trump: Ultra-rich Democrats paying up to £70k a month in London 'safe haven' after ex-President's triumph" https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-democrats-relocate-london
Is Tony Blair all right? He seemed to be walking stiffly with his right leg turning inwards at the Cenotaph this morning. (Or maybe I've not paid much attention since 1997.)
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
Why not a special tartan to go with it? And perhaps his own locker at St Andrews.
Yes, and the Royal Mint could issue a special commemorative coin.
We’ve been clearing out my mother’s flat, and she bought a stack of commemorative crowns for Charles and Diana, the Silver Jubilee, and Britain’s accession to the EU (the latter I must photo and post here just to wind up our Casino). I wonder if they are worth anything, or does every family have some?
I've just in the last few minutes come across a pack of five crowns, including Chuck & Di. My guess is they are worth around five bob each.
Is Tony Blair all right? He seemed to be walking stiffly with his right leg turning inwards at the Cenotaph this morning. (Or maybe I've not paid much attention since 1997.)
Wealthy Democrats prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars to rent property in London before Trump's inauguration as they flee to the relative safety of Starmer's UK "Donald Trump: Ultra-rich Democrats paying up to £70k a month in London 'safe haven' after ex-President's triumph" https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-democrats-relocate-london
More decluttering news, from the Racing Post, 6th October 2005.
The Racing Post reports that odds-on favourite David Davis is drifting after a lacklustre conference speech that compared unfavourably with those of Ken Clarke and David Cameron.
D Davis 5/6 D Cameron 3/1 K Clarke 3/1 L Fox 16/1 M Rifkind 66/1
3 people stabbed, one fatally, at a London market today. Reports of 'mental health' issues. Am I alone in thinking we might be hearing a lot more about mental health issues in relation to violence where religion is involved.
Wealthy Democrats prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars to rent property in London before Trump's inauguration as they flee to the relative safety of Starmer's UK "Donald Trump: Ultra-rich Democrats paying up to £70k a month in London 'safe haven' after ex-President's triumph" https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-democrats-relocate-london
3 people stabbed, one fatally, at a London market today. Reports of 'mental health' issues. Am I alone in thinking we might be hearing a lot more about mental health issues in relation to violence where religion is involved.
The killer is in his 60s, apparently, so mental health would seem favourite.
3 people stabbed, one fatally, at a London market today. Reports of 'mental health' issues. Am I alone in thinking we might be hearing a lot more about mental health issues in relation to violence where religion is involved.
The killer is in his 60s, apparently, so mental health would seem favourite.
Wealthy Democrats prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars to rent property in London before Trump's inauguration as they flee to the relative safety of Starmer's UK "Donald Trump: Ultra-rich Democrats paying up to £70k a month in London 'safe haven' after ex-President's triumph" https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-democrats-relocate-london
"5 calls in 2 days".
it's nearly as many as ultra-millionaires leaving the UK because of a screed they read in the Spectator.
Becky Fatemi, executive partner at Sotheby’s International Realty, said she received five calls in two days.
Why are we still making this big "remembrance" fuss about all the losers who died fighting in wars?
Black History has just had a whole month, and you are grudging 2 minutes?
Didn't even *notice* BHM.
Poppies, on the other hand ... local memorial, Scout Hut, etc., but then I was already contemplating my grandfather's photos, found in the family photos which I am finally sorting out, and wondering what his Great War career had been that I had never known about. No record, because bombed in the 1940s, at least the main MoD ones. Tentative ID from the glengarry badge as a KOSB but then why is the infantryman photographed with a Hotchkiss Portable LMG (for cavalry)?
This year I've seen far more poppies on lampposts than I have on lapels. I think people are getting sick of the whole performative commemoration circus.
Wealthy Democrats prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars to rent property in London before Trump's inauguration as they flee to the relative safety of Starmer's UK "Donald Trump: Ultra-rich Democrats paying up to £70k a month in London 'safe haven' after ex-President's triumph" https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-democrats-relocate-london
I'm looking forward to welcoming an influx of good progressive Americans to Hampstead. We will plot the fightback over a few jars at the Flask.
Good piece @RochdalePioneers, and a reminder that, no matter how much we dislike politicians, most of them put themselves forward for positive reasons of public service. We need more decent people to do the same.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
Part time are never as productive as full time , typical public services holiday camp system , no wonder our services are crap
Wealthy Democrats prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars to rent property in London before Trump's inauguration as they flee to the relative safety of Starmer's UK "Donald Trump: Ultra-rich Democrats paying up to £70k a month in London 'safe haven' after ex-President's triumph" https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-democrats-relocate-london
I'm looking forward to welcoming an influx of good progressive Americans to Hampstead. We will plot the fightback over a few jars at the Flask.
Christ! Not more of the people who've ruined the place.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
Part time are never as productive as full time , typical public services holiday camp system , no wonder our services are crap
Actually, the ones I worked with, you often got more than half the value - partly because one could spread specialist expertise and partly because they tended to do that bit extra in the time.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
Part time are never as productive as full time , typical public services holiday camp system , no wonder our services are crap
I don't think that's true. I no longer work Fridays. I no longer have that Friday afternoon wind-down, and if anything work harder on Thursday to make sure there is nothing left over. I tend to go in early on Monday to pick up what is left over from Friday. I'm prepared to work harder during the week because, even if I have activities planned on Friday, I have more time to recover at the weekend. The downside is next week I'm on training on Monday and Tuesday which of course is now 50% of my week and not 40%.
At a lower level, look at all the retailers and hospitality businesses who recruit a large portion of their staff on a part-time basis.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
Part time are never as productive as full time , typical public services holiday camp system , no wonder our services are crap
That's what they said about Henry Ford's five-day-week, and look how that turned out.
Much of the productivity growth we saw in the 20th Century materialised as reduced working hours, rather than increased economic output. It's only natural that the same should happen in this century - indeed, some think hunter-gatherers had something like a 20-hour week.
Thank you, @RochdalePioneers for the article and for flying the flag at an election. I've stood three times but as a paper candidate each time so the "shock" would have been victory.
There is and has been a constant anti-politician undercurrent (even an anti-politics one on occasion). Politicians are held to standards most wouldn't hold themselves to - the slightest foible (lovely word) is exaggerated into a national scandal. Everything someone said 10 or 20 years is regurgitated and weaponised - yes, they thought that then but do they think it now?
In other countries, a politician having an affair is barely worth a mention - here it's a "scandal". Political opportunism dressed up as neo-puritanism. As Mr Goddard once offered "don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?".
Whether MPs or Councillors, elected representatives are in a strange existence - are they "public servants"? To a point but they aren't Council officers or civil servants though they work with them a lot. They have to do a lot themselves and I suspect the individual parties don't help as much as is neededso it becomes a calling for those with money and time which automatically excludes a large amount of potential from public office of any kind.
Councils are businesses, often very complex ones, but it's also about dealing with constituents on an individual level and I dread to think how much casework Stephen Timms for example has but all MPs will be the same. It's a constant treadmill of casework, visits, attending Parliament (which can be a significant logistical undertaking for those like Andrew George who aren;t exactly near London).
It's a system which you wouldn't start from if you are developing a democratic/parliamentary culture from scratch but we are where we are - with a Parliament building that will fall down in time (and, architectural marvel and tourist attraction notwithstanding), we need a legislative chamber for the 21st century not the 19th.
Two questions.
Is the contempt for politicians worse than in the past? It's always been present, but it does feel worse now. Starmer's dismal honeymoon is noteworthy, but it's been a while since a new PM has floated in on a tide of national goodwill.
If it is different, why? One thing I'd want to probe is the Paxman doctrine- "why is this lying (bad word) lying to me?" Often deserved, but a bad default setting. The other is that we've had fifteen or so years where our assumption that things would get noticeably better most years have been tested and failed that test. And the people in charge have got the blame. In which case, where's the problem- their failure or our flawed assumptions?
Answer to the first - not in the Press certainly (the old Punch cartoons weren't kind). Among the electorate, who were largely voiceless (except at elections) it may just be the old deference has gone. Look at X and some of the language used about individuals is horrendous.
Second, to an extent, if everything is going well and people feel things are getting better each year and they are getting richer, they'll be more tolerant of Government failure or incompetence (as they were in the Thatcher and Balir administrations, both of which had their share of scandal and disaster but presided over periods of growth and prosperity). When th,ings aren't going well, people look to Government for solutions (even if in a global economy there's probably little individual Governments can do) and when they don't see them, they look elsewhere.
I'm actually fairly gloomy - on immigration, for example, let's say you bring in a quota or points-based system to reduce the numbers, tighten up the legal routes and close down the illegal routes (assuming you could), the anti-immigration position would shift to deportations of those already here. That's the problem - if you run to the extremes, the extremes will run quicker and further away from you. That's the price of populism.
You seem to be assuming that any reduction in immigration is “extreme”.
Why is that?
We have a simple issue in the U.K. either we are a growing population. Or not. If we are a growing population, we require growth in accommodation and services. Or we have a non growing population and do not.
Trying to have the cake and eat it - arguing that there is actually enough accommodation and services etc - is just as populist.
In fact, I would say that the definition of a “populist policy” might run like this -
- it claims to have no bad effects for “decent people” - “Elites don’t want you to know this one trick…” the policy is claimed to be simple and obvious. - It is claimed to solve the problem 100%
My Super Simple (TM) idea for immigration is to create a cap based on three key factors. You could call it a "triple lock" if you like.
The rule is simple - immigration can never exceed the following:
New houses built (absolute) Proportion of beds available in the NHS expressed as a percentage of the general population % Increase in transport capacity
So if we build 300,000 new homes in 2025, the maximum amount of immigration in 2025 is 300,000.
But. If NHS capacity only rises by 0.1%, immigration would be capped at 0.1% of the current population, so 68,000.
Same for transport. Which I've picked as it takes time and planning and works as a proxy for 'general levels of infrastructure spending needed to support a growing population'.
Such a policy would please the likes of Reform voters, as they would imagine it would bring immigration down to, say, 68,000. I happen to believe the opposite is the case - we'd start building a f--kton more houses, hospitals, and roads.
And for anybody who thinks this idea is bonkers, I put the opposite to you:
What kind of madness leads a country to welcome hundreds of thousands of new immigrants each year while building a fraction of the number of houses, hospitals and roads needed to support them?
Is it one short of builders, construction workers and nurses?
We deliberately limit training of medical staff to below replacement.
We also have large numbers of people unemployed (not seeking work) or semi unemployed (16 hours)
We could do something crazy, like rework the tax system and training to help them become productive.
I'm a civil servant and work with a lot of part time people. Most are mothers with children or those 60 plus and winding down perhaps already claiming a pension. Remember retiring at 60 used to be fairly common even for men.
Part time are never as productive as full time , typical public services holiday camp system , no wonder our services are crap
I don't think that's true. I no longer work Fridays. I no longer have that Friday afternoon wind-down, and if anything work harder on Thursday to make sure there is nothing left over. I tend to go in early on Monday to pick up what is left over from Friday. I'm prepared to work harder during the week because, even if I have activities planned on Friday, I have more time to recover at the weekend. The downside is next week I'm on training on Monday and Tuesday which of course is now 50% of my week and not 40%.
At a lower level, look at all the retailers and hospitality businesses who recruit a large portion of their staff on a part-time basis.
Comments
Whereas I can quite imagine nuclear war happening as the result of low level bureaucracy. "Oh, form 187-B? To launch a nuclear strike on Moscow? Well, it does look rather like form 187-C, to apply for a parking permit in Woking. But it's not my job to check, so I'll just punch the nuclear codes into the firing mechanism and press the big red button..."
In other words I don't think any one person is mad enough to start a nuclear war, but I can quite imagine one starting because the *process* demands it.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
45m
Why no Cotton or Pompeo? Because they aren't election deniers, and are pro-Ukraine. The plan: Susie Wiles as WH COS to run operations and pat establishment types on the head, while Vance/Don Jr./Tucker/Stephen Miller staff up a full-on America First/Project 2025 administration.
https://x.com/BillKristol
Can Ukraine plug into that (with appropriate missile modules etc)?
(If anyone remembers, the UK put £1bn+ into that and we were cut off at Brexit time.)
The encrypted (jam resistant mode) has been denied to Ukraine, IIRC.
https://youtu.be/aoA-bRa6o8s?t=20
There's a dance about all this - as it often was between 1945 and 1989, it'll either be conflict by proxy or conflict within strict lines of engagement - not good for those doing the fighting and dying but okay for the rest of us.
Ooh, not had that answer before!
When Mrs Stodge and I first moved to East Ham more than twenty years ago, you didn't see many dogs or cats (yes, I know, cue the old restaurant gags about finding a dog collar in the doner kebab) but now you see more families with more pets. In rural Derbyshire, nearly everyone seems to have a dog - there are many retired couples whose children have long since flown the nest and I was left musing on vet fees vs winter fuel allowance.
In Belper, the eateries go out of their way to say they are "dog friendly" - they used to in East Ham as well but I don't think it meant quite the same.
A bigger issue is Starlink.
Rocket Artillery & the War in Ukraine - Evolution, Effectiveness & Development Trends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkAM2nMIJxw
One hopes that the necessary checks are in place, but if I were betting on the likely causes of a nuclear apocalypse, I would pick bureaucracy and process over dick-waving dictatorship every time.
How does an account, designed to spread right wing misinformation, which only started in October 2024 already have 37.5k followers?
The Tweets of this account end up at the top of any Tweet, whether it is political or not. Tell me there’s not something dodgy going on here.
We have one of the most competitive food industries in the world - hardly any country has the quality of food we get for the price we do, and long may it continue without politicians getting their incompetent statist paws on it. Or would you prefer to see our food provision handled the same way as our health provision?
Before they got ban hammer, they had already repeated the trick with other accounts, if i remember a sports one and a gossip one.
Poppies, on the other hand ... local memorial, Scout Hut, etc., but then I was already contemplating my grandfather's photos, found in the family photos which I am finally sorting out, and wondering what his Great War career had been that I had never known about. No record, because bombed in the 1940s, at least the main MoD ones. Tentative ID from the glengarry badge as a KOSB but then why is the infantryman photographed with a Hotchkiss Portable LMG (for cavalry)?
It's got some prominent followers (eg Fr Calvin Robinson), who may be promoting.
It's got a (I assume) paid for blue tick, which gets you onto various system feeds.
Judging on 900+ tweets since some point in October, it's likely to a bot.
It's heavily focuses on "patriotic", which is a dog whistle for Tommy Robinson type nationalism.
It is Musk's twitter; of course something dodgy is going on
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5026893/#Comment_5026893
These next 4 years are going to be a roller coaster with lots of controversy and the US electorate have made Trump master of all he surveys
Maybe if the Democrats had addressed the issues that ordinary people felt rather than relying on celebrity endorsement and no policies they would have seen a better result
If it is true (I'm not comfortable with calling it at 89.7% of votes in) then this is my 4th of 4 bets in my election book[1] to win. Happy news.
Notes
[1] See https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5018658#Comment_5018658
Good evening, everyone.
I still see my chap occasionally and I find as a constant in my life it keeps things ticking over nicely.
A Labour-run council has come under fire for planning a children’s park with a dedicated area for girls to sit and chat
Shouldn’t they be delighted? They know what a woman is.
After Keir Starmer correctly defined it during GE24 the Telegraph have won.
It can't be doing their brand any good. Besides the world is rather shifting, as shown but the Times, NYT, The Athletic, Substack, people who want good coverage, they will actually pay a subscription, which doesn't need to play silly games of click farming engagement.
A: if it’s in the Telegraph
"No 10 'wargaming' retaliatory measures to Donald Trump trade tariffs" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/09/downing-street-war-gaming-responses-trump-trade-tariffs/
But the oddness of the Telegraph (though the Times is going downhill pretty badly) sticks out in the UK, which gives us a bit of hope. Have virtually everyone acting that way, cut all the boring "trying to be objective" voices, and you end up with America.
For five minutes after the photo, the sun was blazing and warm, and the clouds were all in the distance. The world was in colour again
Five minutes more, and the colour had gone; every inch of the sky was gloomy and grey
We opened a beer to celebrate the sun. I didn't even get halfway through it
"Donald Trump: Ultra-rich Democrats paying up to £70k a month in London 'safe haven' after ex-President's triumph" https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-democrats-relocate-london
The Racing Post reports that odds-on favourite David Davis is drifting after a lacklustre conference speech that compared unfavourably with those of Ken Clarke and David Cameron.
D Davis 5/6
D Cameron 3/1
K Clarke 3/1
L Fox 16/1
M Rifkind 66/1
Man killed after three people stabbed at East Street Market in south London
A man believed to be in his 60s has been arrested and is still in custody.
https://news.sky.com/story/man-killed-after-three-people-stabbed-at-east-street-market-in-south-london-13251053
NEW THREAD
it's nearly as many as ultra-millionaires leaving the UK because of a screed they read in the Spectator.
Becky Fatemi, executive partner at Sotheby’s International Realty, said she received five calls in two days.
At a lower level, look at all the retailers and hospitality businesses who recruit a large portion of their staff on a part-time basis.
Much of the productivity growth we saw in the 20th Century materialised as reduced working hours, rather than increased economic output. It's only natural that the same should happen in this century - indeed, some think hunter-gatherers had something like a 20-hour week.