I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
As POTUS2024 proved and @rcs1000 repeatedly pointed out, they aren't independent. Trump got all the swing states, and I assume if Cons play their cards right they can take down a swathe.
(Me: about 150 last time I did a test, which was some time ago ;-) .)
My IQ is so low I cannot remember what it was when I last did a test.
(Though memory != IQ)
Many simple IQ tests have a maximum score of 150, though IQs can, of course, be higher.
Interestingly, people with IQs above 150 tend not to score exactly 150 on these basic tests - typically because they've analysed things on a more complex level beyond the expected answer and come up with entirely valid internal challenges to the logic the respondent is 'supposed' to apply.
It has been theorised that there may even be a bell curve away from the theoretical maximum, and beyond a certain level a typical IQ test score will start to consistently fall as the actual IQ increases, but there's unlikely to ever be enough solid data to prove this because there are just too few hyperintelligent people and too many uncontrollable variables amongst them.
"hyperintelligent people"
I wonder if this goes towards my view that intelligence does not equate particularly well to IQ, and particularly IQ tests that can be prepared for.
I was never very good at exams, which were our judge of “intelligence”. I am not the smartest tool in the shed but I don’t think my exam results reflect my ability.
Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump's likely NATSEC advisor, in an interview last week:
"Enforce the actual energy sanctions on Russia...I think that will get Putin to the table. We have leverage, like taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine as well."
We will see.
So far, there's nothing other than a couple of names to suggest what Trump might, or might not do, once in office.
In the meantime, Europe (some of it at least) is starting to do what it ought to have done sooner.
Europe delivered nearly 1,000,000 artillery shells to Ukraine this year, and aims to deliver another half million rounds by January, per the EU's Josep Borrell.
To put that into perspective: Russia has been firing 60,000 to 70,000 artillery shells per day in the past. It's apparently slowed down a great deal recently (lack of shells? lack of tubes?)
But Russia is making 3,000,000 a year, or over 8,000 a day, and they are also getting many from North Korea.
Presumably Ukraine is also making its own? And there will be supplies from elsewhere too. So at worst it's a 2:1 deficit and probably not all that far off parity. At the low point (last winter, IIRC), Russia had about a 10:1 superiority in shell supply. Obviously, it'd be a lot better if it was 2:1 the other way but it's not putting pressure on as has been in the past.
The bigger problem is still the Nato community's insistence on limiting what Ukraine can do with the supplies out of a false fear of escalation.
Totally o/t everyone but you never know. Someone here might have the info. An ancestor mine..... not a direct one I hasten to add ...... is in the 1891 census as a solicitor, and from various newspapers of the time seems indeed to have been one. In 1896 he was sentenced to 16 months for fraud. However he's in the 1901 Census as a solicitor again. No way he's get back now, would he? But could he then?
(Me: about 150 last time I did a test, which was some time ago ;-) .)
My IQ is so low I cannot remember what it was when I last did a test.
(Though memory != IQ)
Many simple IQ tests have a maximum score of 150, though IQs can, of course, be higher.
Interestingly, people with IQs above 150 tend not to score exactly 150 on these basic tests - typically because they've analysed things on a more complex level beyond the expected answer and come up with entirely valid internal challenges to the logic the respondent is 'supposed' to apply.
It has been theorised that there may even be a bell curve away from the theoretical maximum, and beyond a certain level a typical IQ test score will start to consistently fall as the actual IQ increases, but there's unlikely to ever be enough solid data to prove this because there are just too few hyperintelligent people and too many uncontrollable variables amongst them.
"hyperintelligent people"
I wonder if this goes towards my view that intelligence does not equate particularly well to IQ, and particularly IQ tests that can be prepared for.
IMO, IQ tests, examine a particular set of skills, which correlate strongly to ability to undertake tasks required in STEM and at least in western society, they are seen as highly valued roles. But that is only a slice of overall picture of people and their abilities.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
@Leon can we find consensus that above 18 if you want surgery you can for trans issues?
Are you also happy that if people want to be called “she” they can be? What about for kids?
Where do you stand on gender?
I think we all agree there are two sexes.
I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected. What do you think?
With the counter that any adult facilitating in the mutilation of genitals or healthy breast tissue for reasons of gender confusion on anyone under 18 will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump's likely NATSEC advisor, in an interview last week:
"Enforce the actual energy sanctions on Russia...I think that will get Putin to the table. We have leverage, like taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine as well."
We will see.
So far, there's nothing other than a couple of names to suggest what Trump might, or might not do, once in office.
In the meantime, Europe (some of it at least) is starting to do what it ought to have done sooner.
Europe delivered nearly 1,000,000 artillery shells to Ukraine this year, and aims to deliver another half million rounds by January, per the EU's Josep Borrell.
To put that into perspective: Russia has been firing 60,000 to 70,000 artillery shells per day in the past. It's apparently slowed down a great deal recently (lack of shells? lack of tubes?)
But Russia is making 3,000,000 a year, or over 8,000 a day, and they are also getting many from North Korea.
Presumably Ukraine is also making its own? And there will be supplies from elsewhere too. So at worst it's a 2:1 deficit and probably not all that far off parity. At the low point (last winter, IIRC), Russia had about a 10:1 superiority in shell supply. Obviously, it'd be a lot better if it was 2:1 the other way but it's not putting pressure on as has been in the past.
The bigger problem is still the Nato community's insistence on limiting what Ukraine can do with the supplies out of a false fear of escalation.
There's also a difference in precision I think, meaning you need 3 or more Russian shells for the same "firepower" of 1 Ukrainian one.
Totally o/t everyone but you never know. Someone here might have the info. An ancestor mine..... not a direct one I hasten to add ...... is in the 1891 census as a solicitor, and from various newspapers of the time seems indeed to have been one. In 1896 he was sentenced to 16 months for fraud. However he's in the 1901 Census as a solicitor again. No way he's get back now, would he? But could he then?
Maybe he lied on the Census? He had form after all.
It's a thought. But I don't think so. Ten years later he was a Secretary to Public Companies.
Perhaps the nineteenth century Disclosure and Barring Service wasn't very efficient? Or maybe convictions were considered spent after release from custody? Nowadays a relatively short prison sentence can destroy someone for life and redemption and rehabilitation are out of the question.
Once a fraudster, always a fraudster. Here's your brush, there's your shovel.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret Nothing I have seen or heard about the Smyth case has changed my view that @JustinWelby is a good man with a good heart, strong values and a commitment to public service. He was assured the police and other authorities were properly on the case. Yes, as he admits, he could have been more curious and checked in with exactly what was being done. He has apologised and I think many reasonable people will accept that. However he has chosen what all too few public figures do these days which is accept institutional responsibility. Ps for some reason I am getting calls from journalists who have been told I am handling his PR. I am not. I suspect that is being put around by those ultra conservative forces who have long wanted him gone, and who are aware that I see him from time to time.
That would have been a thoughtful and compassionate post except for the last line...
Alistair Campbell is a lying scumbag who has a problem coming to terms with the fact that people think he is a lying scumbag. People think that because he is proven, lying, scumbag.
And now he pops up to defend someone who tried to overrule and obfuscate….
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
As POTUS2024 proved and @rcs1000 repeatedly pointed out, they aren't independent. Trump got all the swing states, and I assume if Cons play their cards right they can take down a swathe.
They could even take them, win a majority, and then lose it to someone else 4-5 years later in turn.
We're in a very volatile period. And voter loyalty just isn't really there anymore.
...I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected...
History teaches us that having third categories for people so that they can be involuntarily "protected" rarely ends happily. Consider the historic origins of the word "ghetto".
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
Yes I agree with that. If the campaign is good and Labour are in trouble with 5 years of zero growth, tax rises and high interest rates lots of seats will fall and we could get to up to 37% with Labour down on ~25-28% and lots of seats will change hands, well over 100 and probably close to 200.
@Leon can we find consensus that above 18 if you want surgery you can for trans issues?
Are you also happy that if people want to be called “she” they can be? What about for kids?
Where do you stand on gender?
I think we all agree there are two sexes.
I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected. What do you think?
With the counter that any adult facilitating in the mutilation of genitals or healthy breast tissue for reasons of gender confusion on anyone under 18 will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
As POTUS2024 proved and @rcs1000 repeatedly pointed out, they aren't independent. Trump got all the swing states, and I assume if Cons play their cards right they can take down a swathe.
I’d be wary about drawing that conclusion.
America is a two party system, GB wide we’re potentially a five party system at least, and votes could splinter is all sorts of directions.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret Nothing I have seen or heard about the Smyth case has changed my view that @JustinWelby is a good man with a good heart, strong values and a commitment to public service. He was assured the police and other authorities were properly on the case. Yes, as he admits, he could have been more curious and checked in with exactly what was being done. He has apologised and I think many reasonable people will accept that. However he has chosen what all too few public figures do these days which is accept institutional responsibility. Ps for some reason I am getting calls from journalists who have been told I am handling his PR. I am not. I suspect that is being put around by those ultra conservative forces who have long wanted him gone, and who are aware that I see him from time to time.
That would have been a thoughtful and compassionate post except for the last line...
Alistair Campbell is a lying scumbag who has a problem coming to terms with the fact that people think he is a lying scumbag. People think that because he is proven, lying, scumbag.
And now he pops up to defend someone who tried to overrule and obfuscate….
I find his rising again to popularity somewhat depressing. You can hate Brexit and the last government....and quite like a bit of Jonathan Pie putting them on blast.., but really.... Personally I much prefer to listen to Eddie Spheroids and George Osborne, nothing to do with their personal politics, more that it comes from a place of good faith discussion.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
Yes I agree with that. If the campaign is good and Labour are in trouble with 5 years of zero growth, tax rises and high interest rates lots of seats will fall and we could get to up to 37% with Labour down on ~25-28% and lots of seats will change hands, well over 100 and probably close to 200.
I think the Tories will need to offer something to the younger voter.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
As POTUS2024 proved and @rcs1000 repeatedly pointed out, they aren't independent. Trump got all the swing states, and I assume if Cons play their cards right they can take down a swathe.
I’d be wary about drawing that conclusion.
America is a two party system, GB wide we’re potentially a five party system at least, and votes could splinter is all sorts of directions.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
As POTUS2024 proved and @rcs1000 repeatedly pointed out, they aren't independent. Trump got all the swing states, and I assume if Cons play their cards right they can take down a swathe.
I’d be wary about drawing that conclusion.
America is a two party system, GB wide we’re potentially a five party system at least, and votes could splinter is all sorts of directions.
And with five parties, the distribution of votes is mega-important. You can utterly clean up on thirtysomething percent of the vote, provided the opposition vote is uniform enough. The reason the left won so big was that their vote was geographically tidy, whereas the RefCon vote was all mixed up. And that is not an easy thing to fix.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret Nothing I have seen or heard about the Smyth case has changed my view that @JustinWelby is a good man with a good heart, strong values and a commitment to public service. He was assured the police and other authorities were properly on the case. Yes, as he admits, he could have been more curious and checked in with exactly what was being done. He has apologised and I think many reasonable people will accept that. However he has chosen what all too few public figures do these days which is accept institutional responsibility. Ps for some reason I am getting calls from journalists who have been told I am handling his PR. I am not. I suspect that is being put around by those ultra conservative forces who have long wanted him gone, and who are aware that I see him from time to time.
That would have been a thoughtful and compassionate post except for the last line...
Alistair Campbell is a lying scumbag who has a problem coming to terms with the fact that people think he is a lying scumbag. People think that because he is proven, lying, scumbag.
And now he pops up to defend someone who tried to overrule and obfuscate….
We've actually had complaints from a number of lying scumbags about how unfair it is that they're grouped together with Alastair Campbell.
Totally o/t everyone but you never know. Someone here might have the info. An ancestor mine..... not a direct one I hasten to add ...... is in the 1891 census as a solicitor, and from various newspapers of the time seems indeed to have been one. In 1896 he was sentenced to 16 months for fraud. However he's in the 1901 Census as a solicitor again. No way he's get back now, would he? But could he then?
Maybe he lied on the Census? He had form after all.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
The Bishop of Guildford, Andrew Watson is a victim of Smyth; he has been a bishop since 2008. So a question, which I hope can be fully answered, arises as to when he, as an adult in a responsible position, blew the whistle on what he knew. (And assuming he did, why did the ABoC know nothing until 2013?).
Smyth did not die until 2018, so it was not merely a historic matter.
This matter leaves some questions, and lots more than this one.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
The Bishop of Guildford, Andrew Watson is a victim of Smyth; he has been a bishop since 2008. So a question, which I hope can be fully answered, arises as to when he, as an adult in a responsible position, blew the whistle on what he knew. (And assuming he did, why did the ABoC know nothing until 2013?).
Smyth did not die until 2018, so it was not merely a historic matter.
This matter leaves some questions, and lots more than this one.
From the CH4 interview, Welby addressed this point and if I remember correctly said he didn't report it, but in his opinion, as a victim he shouldn't be punished for covering anything up.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
Yes I agree with that. If the campaign is good and Labour are in trouble with 5 years of zero growth, tax rises and high interest rates lots of seats will fall and we could get to up to 37% with Labour down on ~25-28% and lots of seats will change hands, well over 100 and probably close to 200.
I think the Tories will need to offer something to the younger voter.
I think voters aged 30-50 will be the key. There's going to be millions who won't have seen real terms pay rises for around 5 years, facing high interest rates on mortgages and generally have shorter attention spans/memories than older voters who may not be as ready to forget the 2022-2024 period of Tory government. The core vote was reached in 2024, the task will be to add 3-4m to that figure all across the nation. Policies that help 30-50 something people with kids, a mortgage and car payments will be key for the Tories.
I also think further measures for first time buyers is extremely important the Tories need to offer policies that help bring the average age of a first time buyer down from ~38 to ~30 again. We need more investment in new houses and frankly to cut immigration by many hundreds of thousands per year to reduce demand for housing. On both Labour will have to make headway or I think young people under 30 will turn to Reform just as the anti-immigration ticket won over young people for Trump in the US. Reform will be very, very successful in linking high immigration to high housing costs and inflation.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
Probably a bit too old- he's 63 now, and the convention has been to do about a ten year stint with a retirement age of 70.
There are 42 dioceses- 41 if you discount Canterbury, 42 if you count the Bishop of Dover as effectively a diocesan. At the moment, six are vacant. It's probably not that long a longlist.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
As POTUS2024 proved and @rcs1000 repeatedly pointed out, they aren't independent. Trump got all the swing states, and I assume if Cons play their cards right they can take down a swathe.
I’d be wary about drawing that conclusion.
America is a two party system, GB wide we’re potentially a five party system at least, and votes could splinter is all sorts of directions.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret Nothing I have seen or heard about the Smyth case has changed my view that @JustinWelby is a good man with a good heart, strong values and a commitment to public service. He was assured the police and other authorities were properly on the case. Yes, as he admits, he could have been more curious and checked in with exactly what was being done. He has apologised and I think many reasonable people will accept that. However he has chosen what all too few public figures do these days which is accept institutional responsibility. Ps for some reason I am getting calls from journalists who have been told I am handling his PR. I am not. I suspect that is being put around by those ultra conservative forces who have long wanted him gone, and who are aware that I see him from time to time.
That would have been a thoughtful and compassionate post except for the last line...
Alistair Campbell is a lying scumbag who has a problem coming to terms with the fact that people think he is a lying scumbag. People think that because he is proven, lying, scumbag.
And now he pops up to defend someone who tried to overrule and obfuscate….
We've actually had complaints from a number of lying scumbags about how unfair it is that they're grouped together with Alastair Campbell.
I humbly apologise to all the people selling crypto-NFT-spacelaunch-timeshares.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
Probably a bit too old- he's 63 now, and the convention has been to do about a ten year stint with a retirement age of 70.
There are 42 dioceses- 41 if you discount Canterbury, 42 if you count the Bishop of Dover as effectively a diocesan. At the moment, six are vacant. It's probably not that long a longlist.
Given it's a mainly political role, I think they could open it up to people of all faiths. I mean what are the duties? Anointing Kings, annoying the government, and generally being a bit of a tit. There are many faiths that have people that they're looking to dump upwards that would be able to accommodate that job description. And if not, then Diane Abbot has a fitting name after all.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
Yes I agree with that. If the campaign is good and Labour are in trouble with 5 years of zero growth, tax rises and high interest rates lots of seats will fall and we could get to up to 37% with Labour down on ~25-28% and lots of seats will change hands, well over 100 and probably close to 200.
I think the Tories will need to offer something to the younger voter.
I think voters aged 30-50 will be the key. There's going to be millions who won't have seen real terms pay rises for around 5 years, facing high interest rates on mortgages and generally have shorter attention spans/memories than older voters who may not be as ready to forget the 2022-2024 period of Tory government. The core vote was reached in 2024, the task will be to add 3-4m to that figure all across the nation. Policies that help 30-50 something people with kids, a mortgage and car payments will be key for the Tories.
I also think further measures for first time buyers is extremely important the Tories need to offer policies that help bring the average age of a first time buyer down from ~38 to ~30 again. We need more investment in new houses and frankly to cut immigration by many hundreds of thousands per year to reduce demand for housing. On both Labour will have to make headway or I think young people under 30 will turn to Reform just as the anti-immigration ticket won over young people for Trump in the US. Reform will be very, very successful in linking high immigration to high housing costs and inflation.
The 2022-24 Conservative Government could have been so much worse.
It could have been the Labour Government 2024-2028. The one that didn't have to resolve the aftermath of Brexit. Of Covid. Of Ukraine. Of the cost of living crisis/
The Labour Government 2024-2028 just had woes of its own making.
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.
The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.
Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House. Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.
The Dems don't respect the rule of law. See "sanctuary cities" for details.
There is nothing illegal about Sanctuary cities. The legal position is that it is up to Feral law enforcement to enact Federal law and there is no rquirement for State or local law enforcement to assist. In addition there is nothing illegal about having policies that help migrants within a city or State. Indeed this is why the only policy Trump was able to pursue against Sanctuary cities was cutting them off from Federal aid - an action that was itself declared illegal by a Federal judge. Ironic given your argument.
Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump's likely NATSEC advisor, in an interview last week:
"Enforce the actual energy sanctions on Russia...I think that will get Putin to the table. We have leverage, like taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine as well."
We will see.
So far, there's nothing other than a couple of names to suggest what Trump might, or might not do, once in office.
In the meantime, Europe (some of it at least) is starting to do what it ought to have done sooner.
Europe delivered nearly 1,000,000 artillery shells to Ukraine this year, and aims to deliver another half million rounds by January, per the EU's Josep Borrell.
To put that into perspective: Russia has been firing 60,000 to 70,000 artillery shells per day in the past. It's apparently slowed down a great deal recently (lack of shells? lack of tubes?)
But Russia is making 3,000,000 a year, or over 8,000 a day, and they are also getting many from North Korea.
It may have shells. It can't replace the artillery tubes though. Of which it has now lost over 20,000 in Ukraine.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
Probably a bit too old- he's 63 now, and the convention has been to do about a ten year stint with a retirement age of 70.
There are 42 dioceses- 41 if you discount Canterbury, 42 if you count the Bishop of Dover as effectively a diocesan. At the moment, six are vacant. It's probably not that long a longlist.
DYOR, but if I enter the fray betting wise I would look carefully at Usher; and Hartley as a longer priced outsider who distinguished herself by going out on her own yesterday. (Re women candidates, no-one thought a female Bishop of London was thinkable, but they were all wrong).
If I could choose the winner: Sam Wells of St Martin in the Fields stands out a mile.
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.
The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.
Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House. Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.
The Dems don't respect the rule of law. See "sanctuary cities" for details.
There is nothing illegal about Sanctuary cities. The legal position is that it is up to Feral law enforcement to enact Federal law and there is no rquirement for State or local law enforcement to assist. In addition there is nothing illegal about having policies that help migrants within a city or State. Indeed this is why the only policy Trump was able to pursue against Sanctuary cities was cutting them off from Federal aid - an action that was itself declared illegal by a Federal judge. Ironic given your argument.
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
Yes I agree with that. If the campaign is good and Labour are in trouble with 5 years of zero growth, tax rises and high interest rates lots of seats will fall and we could get to up to 37% with Labour down on ~25-28% and lots of seats will change hands, well over 100 and probably close to 200.
I think the Tories will need to offer something to the younger voter.
I think voters aged 30-50 will be the key. There's going to be millions who won't have seen real terms pay rises for around 5 years, facing high interest rates on mortgages and generally have shorter attention spans/memories than older voters who may not be as ready to forget the 2022-2024 period of Tory government. The core vote was reached in 2024, the task will be to add 3-4m to that figure all across the nation. Policies that help 30-50 something people with kids, a mortgage and car payments will be key for the Tories.
I also think further measures for first time buyers is extremely important the Tories need to offer policies that help bring the average age of a first time buyer down from ~38 to ~30 again. We need more investment in new houses and frankly to cut immigration by many hundreds of thousands per year to reduce demand for housing. On both Labour will have to make headway or I think young people under 30 will turn to Reform just as the anti-immigration ticket won over young people for Trump in the US. Reform will be very, very successful in linking high immigration to high housing costs and inflation.
The 2022-24 Conservative Government could have been so much worse.
It could have been the Labour Government 2024-2028. The one that didn't have to resolve the aftermath of Brexit. Of Covid. Of Ukraine. Of the cost of living crisis/
The Labour Government 2024-2028 just had woes of its own making.
Yes and that's why I think the next election could be very volatile. The policies that Labour are putting in place intentionally make companies poorer which means higher prices and pay restraint as they recover margins over the next 2-3 years. So by 2029 the public will have seen zero or negative real terms pay for the last few years. Even the public sector is going to have to live with it in the run up to the election because the state finances are going to look absolutely awful by 2027 and pay freezes for all but the very lowest grades will have to put in place.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Because banks lend in reference to market rates. These are often tied to the BoE base rate (which is the rate the BoE returns to banks for their money lodged with the BoE), but not always. Market rates will be affected by the perceived quality and reliability of the institutions being lent to but also - and more importantly - by other anticipated events over the period of the loan such as the rate of inflation.
If the cost of borrowing by the banks is rising, notwithstanding the reduced returns from the BoE itself, then that cost will be passed on to retail customers.
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret Nothing I have seen or heard about the Smyth case has changed my view that @JustinWelby is a good man with a good heart, strong values and a commitment to public service. He was assured the police and other authorities were properly on the case. Yes, as he admits, he could have been more curious and checked in with exactly what was being done. He has apologised and I think many reasonable people will accept that. However he has chosen what all too few public figures do these days which is accept institutional responsibility. Ps for some reason I am getting calls from journalists who have been told I am handling his PR. I am not. I suspect that is being put around by those ultra conservative forces who have long wanted him gone, and who are aware that I see him from time to time.
That would have been a thoughtful and compassionate post except for the last line...
Alistair Campbell is a lying scumbag who has a problem coming to terms with the fact that people think he is a lying scumbag. People think that because he is proven, lying, scumbag.
And now he pops up to defend someone who tried to overrule and obfuscate….
We've actually had complaints from a number of lying scumbags about how unfair it is that they're grouped together with Alastair Campbell.
I humbly apologise to all the people selling crypto-NFT-spacelaunch-timeshares.
NFTs are so last bull run. I wonder what new web3 scammy hype utility his crypto bull run will be?
Hold on since when did we have a "building beautiful" agenda ?
There's a whole load of new housing estates near me and whilst I'd say they are on balance probably needed, beautiful for Barratt estates doesn't spring to mind
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a decent starting point.
Look at 10 year gilts for the answer. Not far off a 16 year high. The Bank of England magics a number. Banks have to run a business with actual cash in and cash out.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Because banks lend in reference to market rates. These are often tied to the BoE base rate (which is the rate the BoE returns to banks for their money lodged with the BoE), but not always. Market rates will be affected by the perceived quality and reliability of the institutions being lent to but also - and more importantly - by other anticipated events over the period of the loan such as the rate of inflation.
If the cost of borrowing by the banks is rising, notwithstanding the reduced returns from the BoE itself, then that cost will be passed on to retail customers.
Thanks David 👍
So basically it's an indication that the banks think inflation is on the way after the budget?
I've just gone through the Conservative target list for seats for 2029.
None particularly scare me. Basingstoke is target 163, Guildford at 205, Crewe and Nantwich at 230 and Chichester at 258.
I think lots fall all at once, or very few at all.
Yes I agree with that. If the campaign is good and Labour are in trouble with 5 years of zero growth, tax rises and high interest rates lots of seats will fall and we could get to up to 37% with Labour down on ~25-28% and lots of seats will change hands, well over 100 and probably close to 200.
I think the Tories will need to offer something to the younger voter.
I think voters aged 30-50 will be the key. There's going to be millions who won't have seen real terms pay rises for around 5 years, facing high interest rates on mortgages and generally have shorter attention spans/memories than older voters who may not be as ready to forget the 2022-2024 period of Tory government. The core vote was reached in 2024, the task will be to add 3-4m to that figure all across the nation. Policies that help 30-50 something people with kids, a mortgage and car payments will be key for the Tories.
I also think further measures for first time buyers is extremely important the Tories need to offer policies that help bring the average age of a first time buyer down from ~38 to ~30 again. We need more investment in new houses and frankly to cut immigration by many hundreds of thousands per year to reduce demand for housing. On both Labour will have to make headway or I think young people under 30 will turn to Reform just as the anti-immigration ticket won over young people for Trump in the US. Reform will be very, very successful in linking high immigration to high housing costs and inflation.
The 2022-24 Conservative Government could have been so much worse.
It could have been the Labour Government 2024-2028. The one that didn't have to resolve the aftermath of Brexit. Of Covid. Of Ukraine. Of the cost of living crisis/
The Labour Government 2024-2028 just had woes of its own making.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Interest rate expectations have gone up, banks price rates based on what they think the base rate will be in the future. This is reflected in UK government bond yields which rise when future expectations for interest rates rise and fall when markets believe interest rates will fall.
The budget put plus Trump tariffs put the UK on a path for prolonged higher interest rates, there was a lot of hope that the base rate would fall to 2.75-3.00% by the end of next year. I'd be surprised if they now fall below 4% given businesses are going to absorb £20bn in new taxes from April with price rises.
@Leon can we find consensus that above 18 if you want surgery you can for trans issues?
Are you also happy that if people want to be called “she” they can be? What about for kids?
Where do you stand on gender?
I think we all agree there are two sexes.
I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected. What do you think?
With the counter that any adult facilitating in the mutilation of genitals or healthy breast tissue for reasons of gender confusion on anyone under 18 will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Have we found consensus?
Well not really. You will recall two of Viewcode's rants: "Britain is a safe country not a free country", and "we have adultised children and infantilised adults". Let's look at them
* Your remarks about protective categories for trans people have obvious problems (shall we call them "ghettoes" or "beyond the pale"? There are so many terms to pick from...). Are you going to put people in prison for not entering your protective category? * The "under 18" overlooks the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are legally adults and so have adult capacity. Are you going to put adults in prison for wanting to transition?
The UK has a real problem with blurred lines between "adult" and "child" and it really should be demarcated more sharply.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Interest rate expectations have gone up, banks price rates based on what they think the base rate will be in the future. This is reflected in UK government bond yields which rise when future expectations for interest rates rise and fall when markets believe interest rates will fall.
The budget put plus Trump tariffs put the UK on a path for prolonged higher interest rates, there was a lot of hope that the base rate would fall to 2.75-3.00% by the end of next year. I'd be surprised if they now fall below 4% given businesses are going to absorb £20bn in new taxes from April with price rises.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Because banks lend in reference to market rates. These are often tied to the BoE base rate (which is the rate the BoE returns to banks for their money lodged with the BoE), but not always. Market rates will be affected by the perceived quality and reliability of the institutions being lent to but also - and more importantly - by other anticipated events over the period of the loan such as the rate of inflation.
If the cost of borrowing by the banks is rising, notwithstanding the reduced returns from the BoE itself, then that cost will be passed on to retail customers.
Thanks David 👍
So basically it's an indication that the banks think inflation is on the way after the budget?
Well, that the markets do (of which the banks' market traders are a part but not the only part). But overall, yes.
Another way of looking at it - or an additional consideration, really - is that the lenders are looking at their expected returns overall, so even if rates have dropped this week, what really matters is the anticipated level of rates across the whole period of the loan that deals are being made over. Rising inflation obviously erodes returns in its own right but it's also likely to lead to higher base rates too in the medium term.
FWIW, I bumped into an acquaintance yesterday who thought we're heading for a recession based on his knowledge of the haulage industry. Personally, I think that's a narrow prism to be viewing the economy through, particularly given the continuing changes in how retail is operating. He's also naturally pessimistic. However, if he's right then in theory inflation should drop. FWIW, I don't think he is. Still, straws in the wind.
Apparently the Harris campaign paid various celebrities for their endorsements lol. Is that usual ? I mean I know celebs endorse various people but normally it's for free because they believe in that side of the argument (Pretty sure the Democrats have never paid Springsteen for instance and he always endorses them) - just wild that campaign funds were spent on endorsements - $10M for Beyonce apparently !
Wouldn't you expect it the other way round? Person x endorses campaign y and makes a donation to the campaign to help it.
“Ask not what you can do for the cause. Ask what the cause can do for you.”
A strong contrast with Musk who risked his own money and reputation.
Last I heard is that he was worth over 450 billion dollars and given the presumed outcome from backing the right side in the election may become a trillionaire, the risk was not as great to him as is thought.
The Democrats would have exacted retribution if they had won.
Nonsense. Trump wins -> govt contracts, favourable white House. Trump loses -> Dems respect rule of law, Musk is fine.
The Dems don't respect the rule of law. See "sanctuary cities" for details.
There is nothing illegal about Sanctuary cities. The legal position is that it is up to Feral law enforcement to enact Federal law and there is no rquirement for State or local law enforcement to assist. In addition there is nothing illegal about having policies that help migrants within a city or State. Indeed this is why the only policy Trump was able to pursue against Sanctuary cities was cutting them off from Federal aid - an action that was itself declared illegal by a Federal judge. Ironic given your argument.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Interest rate expectations have gone up, banks price rates based on what they think the base rate will be in the future. This is reflected in UK government bond yields which rise when future expectations for interest rates rise and fall when markets believe interest rates will fall.
The budget put plus Trump tariffs put the UK on a path for prolonged higher interest rates, there was a lot of hope that the base rate would fall to 2.75-3.00% by the end of next year. I'd be surprised if they now fall below 4% given businesses are going to absorb £20bn in new taxes from April with price rises.
Plus Trump threatens to pump huge quantities of uncertainty into the world economy with his completely daft ideas. The risk of a serious recession next year or early the year after have increased sharply. Such a recession means that UK borrowing is likely to balloon as tax revenues fall and benefit payments increase. And we are starting with a deficit the best part of £100bn. In the words of the old saying if I was going to Dublin I wouldn't be starting from here.
@Leon can we find consensus that above 18 if you want surgery you can for trans issues?
Are you also happy that if people want to be called “she” they can be? What about for kids?
Where do you stand on gender?
I think we all agree there are two sexes.
I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected. What do you think?
With the counter that any adult facilitating in the mutilation of genitals or healthy breast tissue for reasons of gender confusion on anyone under 18 will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Have we found consensus?
Well not really. You will recall two of Viewcode's rants: "Britain is a safe country not a free country", and "we have adultised children and infantilised adults". Let's look at them
* Your remarks about protective categories for trans people have obvious problems (shall we call them "ghettoes" or "beyond the pale"? There are so many terms to pick from...). Are you going to put people in prison for not entering your protective category? * The "under 18" overlooks the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are legally adults and so have adult capacity. Are you going to put adults in prison for wanting to transition?
The UK has a real problem with blurred lines between "adult" and "child" and it really should be demarcated more sharply.
Are you saying that children become adults as midnight strikes, bit like the Harry Enfield sketch?
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
Probably a bit too old- he's 63 now, and the convention has been to do about a ten year stint with a retirement age of 70.
There are 42 dioceses- 41 if you discount Canterbury, 42 if you count the Bishop of Dover as effectively a diocesan. At the moment, six are vacant. It's probably not that long a longlist.
DYOR, but if I enter the fray betting wise I would look carefully at Usher; and Hartley as a longer priced outsider who distinguished herself by going out on her own yesterday. (Re women candidates, no-one thought a female Bishop of London was thinkable, but they were all wrong).
If I could choose the winner: Sam Wells of St Martin in the Fields stands out a mile.
WIll we see a return to Biblical absolutism with Usher? 4004BC. A Tuesday in May. Just after lunch.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Because banks lend in reference to market rates. These are often tied to the BoE base rate (which is the rate the BoE returns to banks for their money lodged with the BoE), but not always. Market rates will be affected by the perceived quality and reliability of the institutions being lent to but also - and more importantly - by other anticipated events over the period of the loan such as the rate of inflation.
If the cost of borrowing by the banks is rising, notwithstanding the reduced returns from the BoE itself, then that cost will be passed on to retail customers.
Thanks David 👍
So basically it's an indication that the banks think inflation is on the way after the budget?
No. You can borrow or lend for various terms, and the interest rates applicable differ.
If you imagine lending money for a year, then off goes your cash to XYZ plc, and then a year later cash+interest comes back. What you perceive as the likely inflation rate will greatly dictate as to whether you think this is a good deal. However other factors are at work. Could XYZ plc go bust? Surely you should get a bit of a bonus for your commitment for a year?
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Because banks lend in reference to market rates. These are often tied to the BoE base rate (which is the rate the BoE returns to banks for their money lodged with the BoE), but not always. Market rates will be affected by the perceived quality and reliability of the institutions being lent to but also - and more importantly - by other anticipated events over the period of the loan such as the rate of inflation.
If the cost of borrowing by the banks is rising, notwithstanding the reduced returns from the BoE itself, then that cost will be passed on to retail customers.
Thanks David 👍
So basically it's an indication that the banks think inflation is on the way after the budget?
Well, that the markets do (of which the banks' market traders are a part but not the only part). But overall, yes.
Another way of looking at it - or an additional consideration, really - is that the lenders are looking at their expected returns overall, so even if rates have dropped this week, what really matters is the anticipated level of rates across the whole period of the loan that deals are being made over. Rising inflation obviously erodes returns in its own right but it's also likely to lead to higher base rates too in the medium term.
FWIW, I bumped into an acquaintance yesterday who thought we're heading for a recession based on his knowledge of the haulage industry. Personally, I think that's a narrow prism to be viewing the economy through, particularly given the continuing changes in how retail is operating. He's also naturally pessimistic. However, if he's right then in theory inflation should drop. FWIW, I don't think he is. Still, straws in the wind.
OK, cheers David. Lets hope there's not a recession next year.
According to various reports, part of tomorrow hearings are going to be on USO's - unidentified sea objects - that have been reported as tracking submarines with ballistic missiles on.
@Leon can we find consensus that above 18 if you want surgery you can for trans issues?
Are you also happy that if people want to be called “she” they can be? What about for kids?
Where do you stand on gender?
I think we all agree there are two sexes.
I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected. What do you think?
With the counter that any adult facilitating in the mutilation of genitals or healthy breast tissue for reasons of gender confusion on anyone under 18 will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Have we found consensus?
Well not really. You will recall two of Viewcode's rants: "Britain is a safe country not a free country", and "we have adultised children and infantilised adults". Let's look at them
* Your remarks about protective categories for trans people have obvious problems (shall we call them "ghettoes" or "beyond the pale"? There are so many terms to pick from...). Are you going to put people in prison for not entering your protective category? * The "under 18" overlooks the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are legally adults and so have adult capacity. Are you going to put adults in prison for wanting to transition?
The UK has a real problem with blurred lines between "adult" and "child" and it really should be demarcated more sharply.
Are you saying that children become adults as midnight strikes, bit like the Harry Enfield sketch?
How else would you do it? That's how we used to do it years ago. But society is a lot different now and we have created a society full of twentysomethings living in their teenage bedrooms playing video games and having panic attacks at dust. Is that better?
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
Probably a bit too old- he's 63 now, and the convention has been to do about a ten year stint with a retirement age of 70.
There are 42 dioceses- 41 if you discount Canterbury, 42 if you count the Bishop of Dover as effectively a diocesan. At the moment, six are vacant. It's probably not that long a longlist.
Now could be a time strategically to split "ABC" into the "England" and "Head of Anglican Communion" roles, but it is not practical as it would take longer than a year to consult and then work through the worldwide network.
That would best be considered at a Lambeth Conference then meeting of Primates.
Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump's likely NATSEC advisor, in an interview last week:
"Enforce the actual energy sanctions on Russia...I think that will get Putin to the table. We have leverage, like taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine as well."
We will see.
So far, there's nothing other than a couple of names to suggest what Trump might, or might not do, once in office.
In the meantime, Europe (some of it at least) is starting to do what it ought to have done sooner.
Europe delivered nearly 1,000,000 artillery shells to Ukraine this year, and aims to deliver another half million rounds by January, per the EU's Josep Borrell.
To put that into perspective: Russia has been firing 60,000 to 70,000 artillery shells per day in the past. It's apparently slowed down a great deal recently (lack of shells? lack of tubes?)
But Russia is making 3,000,000 a year, or over 8,000 a day, and they are also getting many from North Korea.
It may have shells. It can't replace the artillery tubes though. Of which it has now lost over 20,000 in Ukraine.
Russian losses in the Kursk counter offensive are extraordinary. Almost 2k yesterday if we take the Ukrainian MoD at that word. The Russian people’s threshold for absorbing needless misery amazes more each month. Of course, even if the ratio is 7:1, that’s a lot of Ukrainian body bags too.
Can any of PB's financial whizz's explain why the banks are putting interest rates up when only last week BoE cut the base rate?
Interest rate expectations have gone up, banks price rates based on what they think the base rate will be in the future. This is reflected in UK government bond yields which rise when future expectations for interest rates rise and fall when markets believe interest rates will fall.
The budget put plus Trump tariffs put the UK on a path for prolonged higher interest rates, there was a lot of hope that the base rate would fall to 2.75-3.00% by the end of next year. I'd be surprised if they now fall below 4% given businesses are going to absorb £20bn in new taxes from April with price rises.
"banks price rates based on what they think the base rate will be in the future"
According to various reports, part of tomorrow hearings are going to be on USO's - unidentified sea objects - that have been reported as tracking submarines with ballistic missiles on.
Elizondo has been unequivocal in his written statement:
“Let me be clear: UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our Government – or any other government – are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries.”
So either he’s opening himself up to perjury in front of congress. Or he’s got cover to continue a bizarre pysop against the US public and body politik for “reasons”. Very strange times.
Edit: or he’s telling the truth and is right of course!
For the record: I thought Obama was wrong to comment on Brexit, that he should have said something bland, if asked, for example, that he would leave that decision up to the British voters.
(His remarks may have been counter-productive, of course.)
According to various reports, part of tomorrow hearings are going to be on USO's - unidentified sea objects - that have been reported as tracking submarines with ballistic missiles on.
Elizondo has been unequivocal in his written statement:
“Let me be clear: UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our Government – or any other government – are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries.”
So either he’s opening himself up to perjury in front of congress. Or he’s got cover to continue a bizarre pysop against the US public and body politik for “reasons”. Very strange times.
Edit: or he’s telling the truth and is right of course!
He sounds like he's giving himself a lot of wriggle room there. How many technologies are made by 'the government' - they are made by private defence contractors.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury not being a woman.
Woman: I donate £150 to a charity of your choice. Man: You donate £100 to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Caveat: bet cancelled if the makeup of the Crown Nominations Commission is changed, or the Position (ie job role) of ABC changed.
(Bit of Context: 6 out of the 16 Lords Spiritual are now women.)
Any takers?
No bet... How about one on 'The next appointed ABC is not currently (as at 12-Nov-24) a serving Diocesan Bishop in the Church of England?'
(History would say that's where they come from - I'm suggesting otherwise for clarity)
The only archbishop who wasn't a Diocesan Bishop was Welby and that was obvious on his appointment to +Durham...
Rowan Williams was Archbishop of Wales, not a CoE bishop
Given that the ArchBish is head of the world-wide Anglican communion, would an overseas appointment be a possibility?
Potentially. Theoretically they only need to be an Anglican - so an overseas appointment from somewhere else in the Anglican Communion is possible (and enable Archbishop Rowan to get the job from the Church in Wales). However, (at the moment) as Archbish they are automatically a Privy Counsellor (the highest one in seniority I believe) and so I believe that they technically need to be a citizen of a 'Dominion State' (ie where the King is Head of State) in order to swear loyalty to the Crown. This brings Canada, Australia, New Zealand into play.
Since no one's biting, my thought is that the need to be acceptable to the wider Communion is in my Judgement a reason why the next ABC is unlikely to be a woman this time.
That's why I considered odds against to be a decent judgement.
Indeed... and why I for one am not biting.
For reference - the people that will be choosing consist of the following:
1 Chair (usually a long-standing parliamentarian with strong church links. I would imagine someone like Dame Caroline Spelman) 2 Bishops (usually Archbishop of York and someone from Canterbury province - I would imagine it will be York and the Bishop of either London or Winchester unless any of them think that might get the job and thus stand down) 6 'Central' Members - these are the people that have been involved in selecting other Diocesan bishops recently. Likely to be 4 'conservative' and 2 'liberal' - but it's not that straightforward 5 'Anglican Communion' Members - representing the rest of the Anglican Communion, they are new (previously there was 1, rather than the 5 we have now) 3 Canterbury Diocese members - selected by the local Diocese of Canterbury (for whom the Archbishop is also the local bishop)
That gets you to 17 people. You need an active positive vote from two-thirds (ie 12 people) - which means that 6 people acting in concert can block.
Given the rule about blocking - you would think that the likely successor to be someone who might not engender lots of positivity - but about whom there is little that can be said against them... (You can see this in the recent appointments - those bishops recently appointed as new Diocesans tend to be those that have kept their heads down somewhat, rather than those that have been more outspoken and forthright).
For this reason - I am unconvinced that it will be any of those that are currently listed as likely candidates (Gulli Francis-Dehqani, Bp of Chelmsford; Mark Tanner, Bp of Chester; Martyn Snow, Bp of Leicester; Graham Usher, Bp of Norwich, Paul Williams, Bp of Southall and Nottingham) - but equally I think that they will be wary of someone untested in a Diocesan role - so the possibility of an overseas appointment seems interesting if there is anyone that fits the bill and can be persuaded that it is the right calling)
Give it to Andrew Watson - Bishop of a Guildford as he was a victim of John Smyrh as a boy so would be a fantastic triumph over Smyth and his evil.
Probably a bit too old- he's 63 now, and the convention has been to do about a ten year stint with a retirement age of 70.
There are 42 dioceses- 41 if you discount Canterbury, 42 if you count the Bishop of Dover as effectively a diocesan. At the moment, six are vacant. It's probably not that long a longlist.
Martyn Snow given his lead on living in love and faith - Bishop Of Leicester and right age - could be value
Hold on since when did we have a "building beautiful" agenda ?
There's a whole load of new housing estates near me and whilst I'd say they are on balance probably needed, beautiful for Barratt estates doesn't spring to mind
Much of that depends on how you define 'beautiful'.
You might not want to live in either, and Bar Hill is two or three decades older. But I'd argue the look of the modern houses, as well as the road layouts, are far better, if not 'beautiful'.
But again, what matters most is liveability. If you have ugly houses but the houses are well-built and the community is a great place to live, you are onto a winner. If the houses are beautiful but poorly built and the community is hideous, it's crummy.
But sadly, 'liveability' isn't something that politicians or planner seem to care too much about. What matters most is just building as many houses as possible.
According to various reports, part of tomorrow hearings are going to be on USO's - unidentified sea objects - that have been reported as tracking submarines with ballistic missiles on.
Elizondo has been unequivocal in his written statement:
“Let me be clear: UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our Government – or any other government – are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries.”
So either he’s opening himself up to perjury in front of congress. Or he’s got cover to continue a bizarre pysop against the US public and body politik for “reasons”. Very strange times.
Edit: or he’s telling the truth and is right of course!
He sounds like he's giving himself a lot of wriggle room there. How many technologies are made by 'the government' - they are made by private defence contractors.
The thing is, if you were ET, and had all sorts of amazing tech, what would you look at on Earth? I think it's hardly likely to be military installations. Nature, great concerts, day-to-day. Not General Plank.
Issues in the US election: Few Democrats had anything to say about the problem of synthetic opioids. That's understandable, because so many Democrats in big cities are of the "tune in, turn on" persuasion.
But synthetic opioids are our biggest public health problem, and the main reason US life expectancy began to decline in the last year or two of the Obama administration.
According to various reports, part of tomorrow hearings are going to be on USO's - unidentified sea objects - that have been reported as tracking submarines with ballistic missiles on.
Elizondo has been unequivocal in his written statement:
“Let me be clear: UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our Government – or any other government – are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries.”
So either he’s opening himself up to perjury in front of congress. Or he’s got cover to continue a bizarre pysop against the US public and body politik for “reasons”. Very strange times.
Edit: or he’s telling the truth and is right of course!
He sounds like he's giving himself a lot of wriggle room there. How many technologies are made by 'the government' - they are made by private defence contractors.
Not if you read it in context. And of course also given what he’s likely to say tomorrow. But let’s assume you’re right. What’s the game? Giving the false impression to congress of an unprecedented multi decade criminal conspiracy. But hiding behind semantics. Why? Wtf is the purpose?
I’d like to see Karl Nell in Congress next, given how blunt he was on stage at the SALT conference:
"So non-human intelligence exists, non-human intelligence has been interacting with humanity.
"This is not new and has been going. Unelected people in Government are aware,” Colonel Nell said.
The high level military officer was asked how confident he was about this.
"There is zero doubt,” Mr Nell replied.
Of course he could be making the whole thing up. But aren’t you at all interested in why there would be broad collusion to give this false impression?
According to various reports, part of tomorrow hearings are going to be on USO's - unidentified sea objects - that have been reported as tracking submarines with ballistic missiles on.
Elizondo has been unequivocal in his written statement:
“Let me be clear: UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our Government – or any other government – are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries.”
So either he’s opening himself up to perjury in front of congress. Or he’s got cover to continue a bizarre pysop against the US public and body politik for “reasons”. Very strange times.
Edit: or he’s telling the truth and is right of course!
He sounds like he's giving himself a lot of wriggle room there. How many technologies are made by 'the government' - they are made by private defence contractors.
Elizondo sounds like someone who has escaped from a 1960s Marvel universe .
Issues in the US election: Few Democrats had anything to say about the problem of synthetic opioids. That's understandable, because so many Democrats in big cities are of the "tune in, turn on" persuasion.
But synthetic opioids are our biggest public health problem, and the main reason US life expectancy began to decline in the last year or two of the Obama administration.
Opioids are a much bigger problem in the USA than other western countries. I wonder why that is.
According to various reports, part of tomorrow hearings are going to be on USO's - unidentified sea objects - that have been reported as tracking submarines with ballistic missiles on.
Elizondo has been unequivocal in his written statement:
“Let me be clear: UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our Government – or any other government – are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries.”
So either he’s opening himself up to perjury in front of congress. Or he’s got cover to continue a bizarre pysop against the US public and body politik for “reasons”. Very strange times.
Edit: or he’s telling the truth and is right of course!
He sounds like he's giving himself a lot of wriggle room there. How many technologies are made by 'the government' - they are made by private defence contractors.
The thing is, if you were ET, and had all sorts of amazing tech, what would you look at on Earth? I think it's hardly likely to be military installations. Nature, great concerts, day-to-day. Not General Plank.
Well quite. And if they had the technology to arrive on earth (or surveil us by some other means), they're getting rather sloppy to be detected by the US military during their snooping efforts.
The US has a huge technological advantage over other world powers in the orchestration of these types of things. But that advantage won't last long with China. Looks like they're trying to pull some hoax whilst they're still in a position to do so. I am embarrassed for them - I hope wiser heads prevail.
Has anyone mentioned the Stephen Flynn story? After mercilessly attacking Douglas Ross for having two jobs (MP and MSP) apparently its now perfectly OK for Stephen Flynn to propose to do the same.
And he's definitely not planning to take over the SNP leadership. No no no...
Lets just say that its created a real furore up here.
@Leon can we find consensus that above 18 if you want surgery you can for trans issues?
Are you also happy that if people want to be called “she” they can be? What about for kids?
Where do you stand on gender?
I think we all agree there are two sexes.
I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected. What do you think?
With the counter that any adult facilitating in the mutilation of genitals or healthy breast tissue for reasons of gender confusion on anyone under 18 will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Have we found consensus?
Well not really. You will recall two of Viewcode's rants: "Britain is a safe country not a free country", and "we have adultised children and infantilised adults". Let's look at them
* Your remarks about protective categories for trans people have obvious problems (shall we call them "ghettoes" or "beyond the pale"? There are so many terms to pick from...). Are you going to put people in prison for not entering your protective category? * The "under 18" overlooks the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are legally adults and so have adult capacity. Are you going to put adults in prison for wanting to transition?
The UK has a real problem with blurred lines between "adult" and "child" and it really should be demarcated more sharply.
Are you saying that children become adults as midnight strikes, bit like the Harry Enfield sketch?
How else would you do it? That's how we used to do it years ago. But society is a lot different now and we have created a society full of twentysomethings living in their teenage bedrooms playing video games and having panic attacks at dust. Is that better?
Every age has had a series of points in the entry the adulthood where different rights are conferred. And these points have always been subject to change.
Every few months, a poster breathlessly comments about NEW AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION about ALIENS or UFOs.
And a couple of other posters (usually the same ones...) chime in about how it's going to be the BIGGEST WORLD-CHANGING NEWS!!!!
And every time, the information that was so important turns out to be a nothingburger.
What gets me is the sheer amount of time that Congress seems to waste on these pointless investigations..
They get bored of the daily grind of congressional procedure I guess - half of them seem to prefer to be media personalities than elected representatives.
Has anyone mentioned the Stephen Flynn story? After mercilessly attacking Douglas Ross for having two jobs (MP and MSP) apparently its now perfectly OK for Stephen Flynn to propose to do the same.
And he's definitely not planning to take over the SNP leadership. No no no...
Lets just say that its created a real furore up here.
Rep. Mike Waltz, Trump's likely NATSEC advisor, in an interview last week:
"Enforce the actual energy sanctions on Russia...I think that will get Putin to the table. We have leverage, like taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine as well."
We will see.
So far, there's nothing other than a couple of names to suggest what Trump might, or might not do, once in office.
In the meantime, Europe (some of it at least) is starting to do what it ought to have done sooner.
Europe delivered nearly 1,000,000 artillery shells to Ukraine this year, and aims to deliver another half million rounds by January, per the EU's Josep Borrell.
To put that into perspective: Russia has been firing 60,000 to 70,000 artillery shells per day in the past. It's apparently slowed down a great deal recently (lack of shells? lack of tubes?)
But Russia is making 3,000,000 a year, or over 8,000 a day, and they are also getting many from North Korea.
It may have shells. It can't replace the artillery tubes though. Of which it has now lost over 20,000 in Ukraine.
The Russian people’s threshold for absorbing needless misery amazes more each month.
It's an unfortunately necessary historic strength for them.
Every few months, a poster breathlessly comments about NEW AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION about ALIENS or UFOs.
And a couple of other posters (usually the same ones...) chime in about how it's going to be the BIGGEST WORLD-CHANGING NEWS!!!!
And every time, the information that was so important turns out to be a nothingburger.
Rather than being such a smug know it all, you should open your mind and go and read last year’s Schumer-Rounds amendment, written by the office of the Senate Majority Leader (so implicitly endorsed by the Biden White House) and sponsored and passed on a bipartisan basis, with the approval of Senate Gang of 8 leaders.
They are privy to much that we are not and thought it a priority to try and pass what must count as the most bizarre bill in US democratic history. Why? Then watch Schumer’s speech on the floor after Mike Turner and Mike Rogers killed it in House Committee, for confirmation of how high passions ran.
There is more than one answer to the question of wtf is going but it amazes me how unfascinated you are by the question. If the accusation was an equivalently sized criminal conspiracy in govt about any other area of public policy I suspect your interest level would differ.
Issues in the US election: Few Democrats had anything to say about the problem of synthetic opioids. That's understandable, because so many Democrats in big cities are of the "tune in, turn on" persuasion.
But synthetic opioids are our biggest public health problem, and the main reason US life expectancy began to decline in the last year or two of the Obama administration.
Opioids are a much bigger problem in the USA than other western countries. I wonder why that is.
{The Sackler family has entered the chat}
Because of a fucked up health care system - pushing pills on patients is actually a source of income for doctors in the US. The more they prescribe, the more they make.
So they were prescribing major strength stuff for a vast range of aches and pains.
Which got a lot of people addicted. When health insurance stopped paying, you have addicts looking for a fix….
@Leon can we find consensus that above 18 if you want surgery you can for trans issues?
Are you also happy that if people want to be called “she” they can be? What about for kids?
Where do you stand on gender?
I think we all agree there are two sexes.
I think have a third category for trans people where they can be protected. What do you think?
With the counter that any adult facilitating in the mutilation of genitals or healthy breast tissue for reasons of gender confusion on anyone under 18 will be prosecuted and imprisoned.
Have we found consensus?
Well not really. You will recall two of Viewcode's rants: "Britain is a safe country not a free country", and "we have adultised children and infantilised adults". Let's look at them
* Your remarks about protective categories for trans people have obvious problems (shall we call them "ghettoes" or "beyond the pale"? There are so many terms to pick from...). Are you going to put people in prison for not entering your protective category? * The "under 18" overlooks the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are legally adults and so have adult capacity. Are you going to put adults in prison for wanting to transition?
The UK has a real problem with blurred lines between "adult" and "child" and it really should be demarcated more sharply.
I don't think it is possible to have a completely consistent line, certain rights may reasonably be conferred at different points, but I do think we are deeply confused about what general direction we want to move in as a society, so we both overemphasise the need to listen to young people, whilst also infantilising them as young adults.
Comments
The bigger problem is still the Nato community's insistence on limiting what Ukraine can do with the supplies out of a false fear of escalation.
The Conservatives need to think very carefully about their offer.
Once a fraudster, always a fraudster. Here's your brush, there's your shovel.
And now he pops up to defend someone who tried to overrule and obfuscate….
We're in a very volatile period. And voter loyalty just isn't really there anymore.
America is a two party system, GB wide we’re potentially a five party system at least, and votes could splinter is all sorts of directions.
And planning reform.
Smyth did not die until 2018, so it was not merely a historic matter.
This matter leaves some questions, and lots more than this one.
I also think further measures for first time buyers is extremely important the Tories need to offer policies that help bring the average age of a first time buyer down from ~38 to ~30 again. We need more investment in new houses and frankly to cut immigration by many hundreds of thousands per year to reduce demand for housing. On both Labour will have to make headway or I think young people under 30 will turn to Reform just as the anti-immigration ticket won over young people for Trump in the US. Reform will be very, very successful in linking high immigration to high housing costs and inflation.
There are 42 dioceses- 41 if you discount Canterbury, 42 if you count the Bishop of Dover as effectively a diocesan. At the moment, six are vacant. It's probably not that long a longlist.
By ditching the building beautiful agenda they will reduce consent for new housing and ruin the character of communities.
In a hyper-globalised era, people yearn for a strong sense of place more than ever.
https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1856380794681295092
Oh what a load of utter bollocks. Build houses.
It could have been the Labour Government 2024-2028. The one that didn't have to resolve the aftermath of Brexit. Of Covid. Of Ukraine. Of the cost of living crisis/
The Labour Government 2024-2028 just had woes of its own making.
If I could choose the winner: Sam Wells of St Martin in the Fields stands out a mile.
Explains much...!
If the cost of borrowing by the banks is rising, notwithstanding the reduced returns from the BoE itself, then that cost will be passed on to retail customers.
EDIT. I know Trump has managed to sell his fans all manner of Chinese tat so far. Has he not got in on the virtual scam yet?
There's a whole load of new housing estates near me and whilst I'd say they are on balance probably needed, beautiful for Barratt estates doesn't spring to mind
So basically it's an indication that the banks think inflation is on the way after the budget?
The budget put plus Trump tariffs put the UK on a path for prolonged higher interest rates, there was a lot of hope that the base rate would fall to 2.75-3.00% by the end of next year. I'd be surprised if they now fall below 4% given businesses are going to absorb £20bn in new taxes from April with price rises.
* Your remarks about protective categories for trans people have obvious problems (shall we call them "ghettoes" or "beyond the pale"? There are so many terms to pick from...). Are you going to put people in prison for not entering your protective category?
* The "under 18" overlooks the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are legally adults and so have adult capacity. Are you going to put adults in prison for wanting to transition?
The UK has a real problem with blurred lines between "adult" and "child" and it really should be demarcated more sharply.
Another way of looking at it - or an additional consideration, really - is that the lenders are looking at their expected returns overall, so even if rates have dropped this week, what really matters is the anticipated level of rates across the whole period of the loan that deals are being made over. Rising inflation obviously erodes returns in its own right but it's also likely to lead to higher base rates too in the medium term.
FWIW, I bumped into an acquaintance yesterday who thought we're heading for a recession based on his knowledge of the haulage industry. Personally, I think that's a narrow prism to be viewing the economy through, particularly given the continuing changes in how retail is operating. He's also naturally pessimistic. However, if he's right then in theory inflation should drop. FWIW, I don't think he is. Still, straws in the wind.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23016140.man-exposed-jimmy-savile-itv-says-another-untouchable-paedophile-uk/
If you imagine lending money for a year, then off goes your cash to XYZ plc, and then a year later cash+interest comes back. What you perceive as the likely inflation rate will greatly dictate as to whether you think this is a good deal. However other factors are at work. Could XYZ plc go bust? Surely you should get a bit of a bonus for your commitment for a year?
Edit: The same for you as for the banks.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4983516-ufo-hearing-wednesday/
That would best be considered at a Lambeth Conference then meeting of Primates.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/08/27/trump-selling-more-nft-trading-cards-as-he-courts-crypto-voters/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/27/trump-debate-suit-fundraising
too.
This isn't really true.
“Let me be clear: UAP are real. Advanced technologies not made by our Government – or any other government – are monitoring sensitive military installations around the globe. Furthermore, the U.S. is in possession of UAP technologies, as are some of our adversaries.”
So either he’s opening himself up to perjury in front of congress. Or he’s got cover to continue a bizarre pysop against the US public and body politik for “reasons”. Very strange times.
Edit: or he’s telling the truth and is right of course!
(His remarks may have been counter-productive, of course.)
But I would argue we're getting better. If I pick a random street in my newbuild town, you see a variety of stlyes and designs. F'all front gardens, but lots of walkways and green spaces nearby.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DDSPZmztiBYRjn627
or the newer:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VvLVAUvy1PmpV7x59
Compare to a random street in nearby Bar Hill, built in the 1970s:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/x39m3Ck7UmeQzq7y9
or:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o24vGw5gfmbEFf7V8
(Pins dropped on the map pretty much at random)
You might not want to live in either, and Bar Hill is two or three decades older. But I'd argue the look of the modern houses, as well as the road layouts, are far better, if not 'beautiful'.
But again, what matters most is liveability. If you have ugly houses but the houses are well-built and the community is a great place to live, you are onto a winner. If the houses are beautiful but poorly built and the community is hideous, it's crummy.
But sadly, 'liveability' isn't something that politicians or planner seem to care too much about. What matters most is just building as many houses as possible.
United States "Freedom in the World" rating = 83/100
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-world/2024
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world/2024
But synthetic opioids are our biggest public health problem, and the main reason US life expectancy began to decline in the last year or two of the Obama administration.
I’d like to see Karl Nell in Congress next, given how blunt he was on stage at the SALT conference:
"So non-human intelligence exists, non-human intelligence has been interacting with humanity.
"This is not new and has been going. Unelected people in Government are aware,” Colonel Nell said.
The high level military officer was asked how confident he was about this.
"There is zero doubt,” Mr Nell replied.
Of course he could be making the whole thing up. But aren’t you at all interested in why there would be broad collusion to give this false impression?
And a couple of other posters (usually the same ones...) chime in about how it's going to be the BIGGEST WORLD-CHANGING NEWS!!!!
And every time, the information that was so important turns out to be a nothingburger.
Does he have any idea at all of what any of these jobs will actually be?
The US has a huge technological advantage over other world powers in the orchestration of these types of things. But that advantage won't last long with China. Looks like they're trying to pull some hoax whilst they're still in a position to do so. I am embarrassed for them - I hope wiser heads prevail.
And he's definitely not planning to take over the SNP leadership. No no no...
Lets just say that its created a real furore up here.
Private Scrivens etc
They are privy to much that we are not and thought it a priority to try and pass what must count as the most bizarre bill in US democratic history. Why? Then watch Schumer’s speech on the floor after Mike Turner and Mike Rogers killed it in House Committee, for confirmation of how high passions ran.
There is more than one answer to the question of wtf is going but it amazes me how unfascinated you are by the question. If the accusation was an equivalently sized criminal conspiracy in govt about any other area of public policy I suspect your interest level would differ.
Because of a fucked up health care system - pushing pills on patients is actually a source of income for doctors in the US. The more they prescribe, the more they make.
So they were prescribing major strength stuff for a vast range of aches and pains.
Which got a lot of people addicted. When health insurance stopped paying, you have addicts looking for a fix….
Maybe it is just me but my social media streams full of people saying this will be a disaster and families will just be coercing all over the place.
Very sad to say this - I think it should be passed and made law.