"At least he didn’t say Die Hard, a film released in July 1988, was a Christmas film"
One of the quintissential Christmas films, Holiday Inn, the film that gave us the song 'White Christmas' Was released in July 1942.
Christmas in Connecticut was released in June 1945 Miracle on 34th Street was released in June 1947.
Date of release has no bearing on whether a film is Christmas film or not.
And a reminder that whilst the general public (including TSE) may be ignorant about what constitutes a Christmas film, those in the know - such as the experts at Empire and Rotten Tomatoes - definitely class Die Hard as a Christmas film.
For me a true 'Christmas' film needs to have a central theme which requires the specific holiday, or at least could not easily be swapped out for any other one*. Despite people's insistence that Die Hard does actually thematically (rather than superficially) invoke Christmas that way, I've never bought that as a serious argument, just a comedic argument that can be fun to have. Like people getting upset about Pineapple on Pizza obviously no one really cares, that's why it can be good to pretend to care. Die Hard is now a Christmas film purely because people have been faux-arguing about it so long that it has become one, not because you couldn't edit it to be set at Thanksgiving and have basically the same movie, as you could.
*Very few films would actually make the cut if that standard was applied however.
Die Hard is Home Alone for grown-ups. Home Alone is Die Hard for kids.
Home Alone is unquestionably a Christmas movie. Die Hard is unquestionably a Christmas movie.
Her lies catching up with her. She can't have it both ways, making a big thing of absolutely no to any austerity, then today absolutely no to any further tax rises. The IFS said straight after the budget that year 3, the numbers don't add up, so their presumption was further tax rises will come to pay for it (also taps turned on massively for the NHS, they aren't just going to turn them off after all that front loaded money has been spent).
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
Spot price of electricity was negative for a few hours last night. Grid would have paid you to store some of it.
(I'm interested by the floor in gas generation of about 4GW, even when we have excess wind and are exporting to Europe. Anyone know why? I imagine it's something simple like it's difficult to fully shut down a gas power station)
Local pricing would sort that very quickly. More quickly than we can fully upgrade the grid.
Are you suggesting it's because there aren't the power cables too take the wind energy to the places that the 4GW of gas is supplying electricity?
It’s not as simple as that. But there’s no capacity to present the excess power to areas where industrial development might rapidly take it up - and no local pricing to incentivise that development where it’s now available.
Regional pricing is a cause the LibDems should take up.
It’s economically efficient, and would benefit the regions in particular. It would be a big boost for renewables.
Statist Labour probably won’t like it. Nor will the foreign owners of the monopoly Grid. It’s probably against the centralising tendency of the Tories, too. Though the dilution of the grid monopoly ought to appeal to their market and pro-business instincts.
Davey was a pretty good energy minister. He really ought to get it.
I agree with you about regional pricing but am not sure of the practicalities. Does the fact we have a National Grid preclude the ability to have regional pricing? And would it mean excessively high bills for those areas not fortunate enough to have local generation?
These are genuine questions to which I don't know the answer at present.
Her lies catching up with her. She can't have it both ways, making a big thing of absolutely no to any austerity, then today absolutely no to any further tax rises. The IFS said straight after the budget that year 3, the numbers don't add up, so their presumption was further tax rises will come to pay for it (also taps turned on massively for the NHS, they aren't just going to turn them off after all that front loaded money has been spent).
Of the choices on offer, what will be easiest to do? As that is what will happen.
Usually that's can kicking, but at some point we run out of road (have you seen the cost of road construction after all?).
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
"At least he didn’t say Die Hard, a film released in July 1988, was a Christmas film"
One of the quintissential Christmas films, Holiday Inn, the film that gave us the song 'White Christmas' Was released in July 1942.
Christmas in Connecticut was released in June 1945 Miracle on 34th Street was released in June 1947.
Date of release has no bearing on whether a film is Christmas film or not.
And a reminder that whilst the general public (including TSE) may be ignorant about what constitutes a Christmas film, those in the know - such as the experts at Empire and Rotten Tomatoes - definitely class Die Hard as a Christmas film.
For me a true 'Christmas' film needs to have a central theme which requires the specific holiday, or at least could not easily be swapped out for any other one*. Despite people's insistence that Die Hard does actually thematically (rather than superficially) invoke Christmas that way, I've never bought that as a serious argument, just a comedic argument that can be fun to have. Like people getting upset about Pineapple on Pizza obviously no one really cares, that's why it can be good to pretend to care. Die Hard is now a Christmas film purely because people have been faux-arguing about it so long that it has become one, not because you couldn't edit it to be set at Thanksgiving and have basically the same movie, as you could.
*Very few films would actually make the cut if that standard was applied however.
On that basis 'Its a Wonderful Life' would not be considered a Christmas film as the central theme - of the impact an individual has on the world around them without even knowing it - could have been portryed in almost exactly the same way at any time of year. Indeed Kapra did not consider he was making a Christmas film.
"At least he didn’t say Die Hard, a film released in July 1988, was a Christmas film"
One of the quintissential Christmas films, Holiday Inn, the film that gave us the song 'White Christmas' Was released in July 1942.
Christmas in Connecticut was released in June 1945 Miracle on 34th Street was released in June 1947.
Date of release has no bearing on whether a film is Christmas film or not.
And a reminder that whilst the general public (including TSE) may be ignorant about what constitutes a Christmas film, those in the know - such as the experts at Empire and Rotten Tomatoes - definitely class Die Hard as a Christmas film.
I think there is also an argument where there is a lot of subjectivity, or even conditioning, socialising, inbuilt into what is a Christmas movie to each person.
Such as a film you first saw at Christmas season, and watched a second time at Christmas etc so you personally associate it with Christmas. My Dad says Ben Hur is a Christmas movie - to me that’s bonkers it’s actually about Easter - because he says it was screened every Christmas when he was young, with Spartacus and Wizard of Oz. So anything that “reminds you” of Christmas can show up in Christmas film polling. reminds you of Christmas makes it Christmas film?
@TSE I have sent you a proper header where I put everybody right on macro economics. Some of the recent headers are turning PB into the Daily Star.
"At least he didn’t say Die Hard, a film released in July 1988, was a Christmas film"
One of the quintissential Christmas films, Holiday Inn, the film that gave us the song 'White Christmas' Was released in July 1942.
Christmas in Connecticut was released in June 1945 Miracle on 34th Street was released in June 1947.
Date of release has no bearing on whether a film is Christmas film or not.
And a reminder that whilst the general public (including TSE) may be ignorant about what constitutes a Christmas film, those in the know - such as the experts at Empire and Rotten Tomatoes - definitely class Die Hard as a Christmas film.
For me a true 'Christmas' film needs to have a central theme which requires the specific holiday, or at least could not easily be swapped out for any other one*. Despite people's insistence that Die Hard does actually thematically (rather than superficially) invoke Christmas that way, I've never bought that as a serious argument, just a comedic argument that can be fun to have. Like people getting upset about Pineapple on Pizza obviously no one really cares, that's why it can be good to pretend to care. Die Hard is now a Christmas film purely because people have been faux-arguing about it so long that it has become one, not because you couldn't edit it to be set at Thanksgiving and have basically the same movie, as you could.
*Very few films would actually make the cut if that standard was applied however.
On that basis 'Its a Wonderful Life' would not be considerd a Christmas film as the central theme - of the impact an individual has on the world around them without even knowing it - could have been portryed in almost exactly the same way at any time of year. Indeed Kapra did not consider he was making a Christmas film.
Christmas is a good setting for many stories which want to have themes about family in particular, especially where many people might only gather in such a way at Christmas, and it's associated with being nice to people, hence learning to be a better person (or realising you are not that bad a person) fits pretty well. But you could obviously manage it in other holidays. You could argue away pretty much any Christmas movie that way if we wanted.
But it's also easy to go too far the other way. Jack Reacher 2 takes place at Halloween, pretty randomly, it doesn't make it a Halloween film.
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
Because being in denial was the easy option.
The Budget was horrendous. It jacked up taxes and increased borrowing. Far from closing a fiscal black hole, it dramatically increased it.
The choice she has is:
1: Admit future tax rises now. 2: Admit future borrowing rises now. 3: Admit future spending cuts now. 4: Change policies now so they don't need to happen. 5: Be in denial and hope something comes that saves the day so its not necessary.
Steven Swinford @stevenswinford.bsky.social · 6h Keir Starmer is this week conducting face-to-face interviews with four candidates to be Cabinet Secretary:
Olly Robbins Antonia Romeo Tamara Finkelstein Chris Wormald
If he goes for Romeo or Finkelstein it would be the first female Cabinet Secretary in history
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
I agree with Barty on this one. Feels like the Conservatives have monumentally screwed up, and created a rare generational change in UK politics.
Correct me where wrong: If voters have switched in anger at Brexit, anger at Partygate, and anger at their cost of living eroded, political comeback on General Election day surely equates to that anger and hatred of Tories going away?
It’s perfectly possible a lot of people feel personally better off and public services in better hands and economy in better hands in 2029, than they remember feeling about it all in 2024, giving Labour another landslide win will really bring home how voters have switched, and what a hole the Conservatives are in, and discipline on messaging, and incredible hard work and ground game needed to fight back and be in with any sort of chance in 2034.
If you're in pain and dying that's a pretty bad position to be in.
The idea that to then make it even worse by other people's views as to what's best for you prevailing over your own views is what is really repugnant.
Lord Falconer is absolutely right - the people objecting are doing so for religious / moral reasons. If they were genuinely concerned about the details of the safeguards then they would say how they think the safeguards can be improved. But they aren't doing that.
Imposing religious views on everyone is what happens in a theocracy - eg in Iran and Afghanistan.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country do not want our laws determined by other people's religious beliefs - hence the huge public support for assisted dying.
If you are religious and against assisted dying then that's absolutely fine - don't have one. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
"At least he didn’t say Die Hard, a film released in July 1988, was a Christmas film"
One of the quintissential Christmas films, Holiday Inn, the film that gave us the song 'White Christmas' Was released in July 1942.
Christmas in Connecticut was released in June 1945 Miracle on 34th Street was released in June 1947.
Date of release has no bearing on whether a film is Christmas film or not.
And a reminder that whilst the general public (including TSE) may be ignorant about what constitutes a Christmas film, those in the know - such as the experts at Empire and Rotten Tomatoes - definitely class Die Hard as a Christmas film.
I think there is also an argument where there is a lot of subjectivity, or even conditioning, socialising, inbuilt into what is a Christmas movie to each person.
Such as a film you first saw at Christmas season, and watched a second time at Christmas etc so you personally associate it with Christmas. My Dad says Ben Hur is a Christmas movie - to me that’s bonkers it’s actually about Easter - because he says it was screened every Christmas when he was young, with Spartacus and Wizard of Oz. So anything that “reminds you” of Christmas can show up in Christmas film polling. reminds you of Christmas makes it Christmas film?
@TSE I have sent you a proper header where I put everybody right on macro economics. Some of the recent headers are turning PB into the Daily Star.
I would suggest that as a prerequisite to even start to be considered as a Christmas film, a significant part of the film should be set on or around Christmas. That is not necessarily enough on its own but it should be an absolute qualifying requirement
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
Spot price of electricity was negative for a few hours last night. Grid would have paid you to store some of it.
(I'm interested by the floor in gas generation of about 4GW, even when we have excess wind and are exporting to Europe. Anyone know why? I imagine it's something simple like it's difficult to fully shut down a gas power station)
Local pricing would sort that very quickly. More quickly than we can fully upgrade the grid.
Are you suggesting it's because there aren't the power cables too take the wind energy to the places that the 4GW of gas is supplying electricity?
It’s not as simple as that. But there’s no capacity to present the excess power to areas where industrial development might rapidly take it up - and no local pricing to incentivise that development where it’s now available.
Regional pricing is a cause the LibDems should take up.
It’s economically efficient, and would benefit the regions in particular. It would be a big boost for renewables.
Statist Labour probably won’t like it. Nor will the foreign owners of the monopoly Grid. It’s probably against the centralising tendency of the Tories, too. Though the dilution of the grid monopoly ought to appeal to their market and pro-business instincts.
Davey was a pretty good energy minister. He really ought to get it.
I agree with you about regional pricing but am not sure of the practicalities. Does the fact we have a National Grid preclude the ability to have regional pricing? And would it mean excessively high bills for those areas not fortunate enough to have local generation?
These are genuine questions to which I don't know the answer at present.
No, and no are my undetailed answers. The grid, and the electricity market itself are separate things.
One point to note is that we’re paying a lot of money for surplus capacity not to be used. Even if it were given away free, to be used by a local producer close to where it’s generated, it would be economically beneficial to the country.
Sold for cash at sub market rates, it would benefit producers, and reduce the need for constraint payments. More locally generated and used energy would also reduce the requirement for paying for increased grid capacity - and benefit regional development.
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
Rachel Reeves claims today have made her a political hostage to fortune, indeed why dig herself this hole especially after she has already reneged on so many of Labour's pre GE pledges? Is there anyone in No10 or No11 with any understanding of how political messaging works or just how damaging it will be in the longer term if the electorate simple see this Labour Government as totally untrustworthy?
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
Rachel Reeves claims today have made her a political hostage to fortune, indeed why dig herself this hole especially after she has already reneged on so many of Labour's pre GE pledges? Is there anyone in No10 or No11 with any understanding of how political messaging works or just how damaging it will be in the longer term if the electorate simple see this Labour Government as totally untrustworthy?
Just had a text from EDF confirming that as we had reduced our peak energy use we have free electricity from 8.00am to 8.00pm next Sunday plus free electricity on Christmas day between 8.00am and 4.00pm
Seems Sundays are becoming laundry days !!!!!!
And when that nice Mr Miliband gets his way, that sort of thing will happen more often. It's not going to need unimaginably more turbines and panels to get fairly regular times when production exceeds demand. And then consumption patterns will adapt to fit, because why wouldn't you?
(Same as the old Economy 7 system; that worked because turning coal power stations up and down was a massive pain in the neck.)
Spot price of electricity was negative for a few hours last night. Grid would have paid you to store some of it.
(I'm interested by the floor in gas generation of about 4GW, even when we have excess wind and are exporting to Europe. Anyone know why? I imagine it's something simple like it's difficult to fully shut down a gas power station)
Local pricing would sort that very quickly. More quickly than we can fully upgrade the grid.
Are you suggesting it's because there aren't the power cables too take the wind energy to the places that the 4GW of gas is supplying electricity?
It’s not as simple as that. But there’s no capacity to present the excess power to areas where industrial development might rapidly take it up - and no local pricing to incentivise that development where it’s now available.
Regional pricing is a cause the LibDems should take up.
It’s economically efficient, and would benefit the regions in particular. It would be a big boost for renewables.
Statist Labour probably won’t like it. Nor will the foreign owners of the monopoly Grid. It’s probably against the centralising tendency of the Tories, too. Though the dilution of the grid monopoly ought to appeal to their market and pro-business instincts.
Davey was a pretty good energy minister. He really ought to get it.
I agree with you about regional pricing but am not sure of the practicalities. Does the fact we have a National Grid preclude the ability to have regional pricing? And would it mean excessively high bills for those areas not fortunate enough to have local generation?
These are genuine questions to which I don't know the answer at present.
Note that some parts of the UK - notably Scotland - pay higher prices than elsewhere, despite their generating locally the cheapest electricity. That “excessively high prices” already.
Then there’s the point that the non generation costs can swamp the generation costs; local pricing has the potential to reduce the former: … The reason we are debating locational pricing is precisely because the grid balancing part of our electricity bills is far too high and is set to grow even higher. If a shift to local pricing slashes balancing costs, as Ofgem estimates it will, then it is possible for the final bill households pay to fall in every part of the country even if the wholesale part of their electricity bill goes up...
President Biden and Dr. Jill Biden, the first lady, will attend President-elect Trump’s inauguration in January, a White House spokesman told reporters on Monday, according to reporting by Reuters.
Trump announces blanket tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China
And so the global trade war of 2025 begins
Opening hand in his negotiations I guess.
I had no idea Canada was flooding the US with "aliens".
Eh???
Yes, flooding might be a bit of a strong term, but lots of people have exploiting tourist visas to go to Canada, they fly in and then immediately cross the border and claim asylum.
Peter Santenello did a couple of very good videos.
Trump announces blanket tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China
Canada and Mexico?
So he's quitting the USMCA then?
IE the free trade agreement between the USA, Canada and Mexico signed by his predecessor *checks notes* President Donald J. Trump.
His new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, was going around telling people this week that they would only be introducing tariffs gradually and only after assessing the impact on an industry-by-industry basis. I guess he's not entirely in the loop.
"At least he didn’t say Die Hard, a film released in July 1988, was a Christmas film"
One of the quintissential Christmas films, Holiday Inn, the film that gave us the song 'White Christmas' Was released in July 1942.
Christmas in Connecticut was released in June 1945 Miracle on 34th Street was released in June 1947.
Date of release has no bearing on whether a film is Christmas film or not.
And a reminder that whilst the general public (including TSE) may be ignorant about what constitutes a Christmas film, those in the know - such as the experts at Empire and Rotten Tomatoes - definitely class Die Hard as a Christmas film.
For me a true 'Christmas' film needs to have a central theme which requires the specific holiday, or at least could not easily be swapped out for any other one*. Despite people's insistence that Die Hard does actually thematically (rather than superficially) invoke Christmas that way, I've never bought that as a serious argument, just a comedic argument that can be fun to have. Like people getting upset about Pineapple on Pizza obviously no one really cares, that's why it can be good to pretend to care. Die Hard is now a Christmas film purely because people have been faux-arguing about it so long that it has become one, not because you couldn't edit it to be set at Thanksgiving and have basically the same movie, as you could.
*Very few films would actually make the cut if that standard was applied however.
On that basis 'Its a Wonderful Life' would not be considerd a Christmas film as the central theme - of the impact an individual has on the world around them without even knowing it - could have been portryed in almost exactly the same way at any time of year. Indeed Kapra did not consider he was making a Christmas film.
Christmas is a good setting for many stories which want to have themes about family in particular, especially where many people might only gather in such a way at Christmas, and it's associated with being nice to people, hence learning to be a better person (or realising you are not that bad a person) fits pretty well. But you could obviously manage it in other holidays. You could argue away pretty much any Christmas movie that way if we wanted.
But it's also easy to go too far the other way. Jack Reacher 2 takes place at Halloween, pretty randomly, it doesn't make it a Halloween film.
Trump announces blanket tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China
And so the global trade war of 2025 begins
Opening hand in his negotiations I guess.
I had no idea Canada was flooding the US with "aliens".
Eh???
Canada has had a very liberal immigration policy for the last few years under Trudeau. Its demographics are not what they were.
I think the problem is more about people taking advantage of how easy it is to get a Canadian tourist visa, and people exploiting that, rather than people legally emigrating to Canada before deciding to claim asylum in the US.
Trump announces blanket tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China
Canada and Mexico?
So he's quitting the USMCA then?
IE the free trade agreement between the USA, Canada and Mexico signed by his predecessor *checks notes* President Donald J. Trump.
His new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, was going around telling people this week that they would only be introducing tariffs gradually and only after assessing the impact on an industry-by-industry basis. I guess he's not entirely in the loop.
Late winter celebrations. Lots here we can work with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemas Plus, it's, I think, a quarter day. Slap in a bank holiday, concoct a few feel good traditions involving alcohol and meat and just enough fresh air and some cadles, natch,and we're good to go.
To understand the candles, understand the candle is expression or allegory of time itself. Everything was once dust, and will return to dust, thanks to time, and the little flickering fragile candle is saying: yeah baby, I’m cool with that, bring it on. And that’s proper faith and belief in something that’s even beyond time itself.
Trump announces blanket tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China
Canada and Mexico?
So he's quitting the USMCA then?
IE the free trade agreement between the USA, Canada and Mexico signed by his predecessor *checks notes* President Donald J. Trump.
His new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, was going around telling people this week that they would only be introducing tariffs gradually and only after assessing the impact on an industry-by-industry basis. I guess he's not entirely in the loop.
He’s in the loopy.
The same chaos as 2016.
In a sense that is hopeful. 2025 is never properly happening with the clown in charge.
However, many crucial details of what the reforms will mean in practice have not been confirmed, and it is understood such decisions will not be made until next year. For example, the government has said young people must take up offers of a job or training, or lose their benefits, but it has not spelled out how such sanctions will work or when they will come into force.
Did they not make any detailed plans before getting into government? Everybody knows this is a huge problem with somewhere between 8 and 10 million economically inactive and needs to be tackled.
He also shared a video of Chinese drones and said “Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”..
Those “idiots” include the Chinese. In this case, Musk is probably the idiot.
The F35 might be obsolete in a decade or so’s time; it certainly isn’t now. And there are no drones, either in production or near term development, with the capacity to replace it.
Trump trying to bring down Trudeau is interesting.
He could seal his legacy with a big, beautiful land deal to annex Canada to the USA.
Normally, that's where we step in to defend them.
Thankfully, we still have at least one working snatch Land Rover and half a dozen men with SA80s with a couple of mags of ammo, provided it's not the weekend, so that'll be all good.
The Sun's Political editor Harry Cole on the SkyNews paper review tonight - 'I just think there is a slight honesty gap at the moment with this Chancellor'...
Trump trying to bring down Trudeau is interesting.
He could seal his legacy with a big, beautiful land deal to annex Canada to the USA.
Alberta and Manitoba and Saskatchewan might agree. The rest would prefer to keep the King and even join the UK. Quebec would go even further and return itself to France
Trump trying to bring down Trudeau is interesting.
He could seal his legacy with a big, beautiful land deal to annex Canada to the USA.
You seem to have your finger on the pulse. When Europe is carved up between Putin and the US. I am assuming mainland Europe is handed to Russia. I am also assuming Trump gets the UK to safeguard Turnberry and Aberdeenshire Resort, but who walks off with Ireland?
Trump trying to bring down Trudeau is interesting.
He could seal his legacy with a big, beautiful land deal to annex Canada to the USA.
Alberta and Manitoba and Saskatchewan might agree. The rest would prefer to keep the King and even join the UK. Quebec would go even further and return itself to France
You don't know Albertans if you think they might agree.
They are right wing Canadians, some of whom make Texans look like bleeding heart liberals, but they are Canadian through and through and would never agree to that.
Went to Norway for 5 days, no transport problems, come back to the UK and one of the trains I was travelling on was cancelled due to flooding, in a place that must have been flooding for centuries.
Not centuries. There was no flooding before July 5th and the trains always ran on time.
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal ratings - which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things that for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
We, and Labour, are in a muddle. People are saying they should have campaigned differently - ie more honestly about tax, spend, borrow and so on.
But the thing I notice is that despite Reform's intervention from the right splitting the vote, Labour while winning, both did very badly in % terms and much worse than the polling said. The conclusion has to be that they could easily have lost, just as in 1992.
Sadly the Ming vase strategy was essential. Yes, it limits their options. But there is no such thing as a popular tax rise, and no-one has really suggested (eg CBI today) what they should have done instead.
However, their useless presentation, PR, comms, unforced errors and apparent lack of direction are 100% Labour's fault.
The "ming vase" strategy may have delivered Labour a landslide in 2024 but it may well see them removed from office in 2029 and we wait to see how badly they are defeated...
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal ratings - which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things that for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
We, and Labour, are in a muddle. People are saying they should have campaigned differently - ie more honestly about tax, spend, borrow and so on.
But the thing I notice is that despite Reform's intervention from the right splitting the vote, Labour while winning, both did very badly in % terms and much worse than the polling said. The conclusion has to be that they could easily have lost, just as in 1992.
Sadly the Ming vase strategy was essential. Yes, it limits their options. But there is no such thing as a popular tax rise, and no-one has really suggested (eg CBI today) what they should have done instead.
However, their useless presentation, PR, comms, unforced errors and apparent lack of direction are 100% Labour's fault.
The "ming vase" strategy may have delivered Labour a landslide in 2024 but it may well see them removed from office in 2029 and we wait to see how badly they are defeated...
Truth. Honesty. Transparency. They are ALWAYS the key attributes in politics.
Labour before the election was Untruthful. Dishonest. And lacked transparency. They will now suffer the consequences...
Normally that would be OK as we'd have a moderate, center-right Conservative Party waiting in the wings... and we may still do so...
BUT... The specter of Farage and Reform looms large and it's distinctly possible that Labours disingenuousness will lead to a very nasty Ref/Con government with Farage as PM.
BTW, the United States will be a better place for the Supreme Court's restoration of our civil rights laws, by ending affirmative action/positive discrimination/quotas. For which McConnell can claim some credit.
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
Rachel Reeves claims today have made her a political hostage to fortune, indeed why dig herself this hole especially after she has already reneged on so many of Labour's pre GE pledges? Is there anyone in No10 or No11 with any understanding of how political messaging works or just how damaging it will be in the longer term if the electorate simple see this Labour Government as totally untrustworthy?
Before this becomes accepted as received wisdom, what are the pre GE pledges Labour has reneged on. To me it looks like they've contorted themselves quite a bit to *not* break pledges. People seem to think there was a promise of no tax rises.. there wasn't and the Tories certainly claimed labour would raise taxes.
President Biden and Dr. Jill Biden, the first lady, will attend President-elect Trump’s inauguration in January, a White House spokesman told reporters on Monday, according to reporting by Reuters.
Steven Swinford @stevenswinford.bsky.social · 6h Keir Starmer is this week conducting face-to-face interviews with four candidates to be Cabinet Secretary:
Olly Robbins Antonia Romeo Tamara Finkelstein Chris Wormald
If he goes for Romeo or Finkelstein it would be the first female Cabinet Secretary in history
An interesting test of the idea that Starmer has a problem with women.
Three public schools, at least two PPEs, and all four went to Oxford. Woke DEI in action!
A more determined Germany might equally have prevented the invasion outright. As it is, possibly a quarter million dead by the time this ends. And Germany’s economy semi-ruined, along with the rest of Europe.
Didn't end too well last time German troops took on the Russians in Ukraine.
Only keeping Ukraine's nuclear weapons would have really secured its security
This idea keeps recurring and I have my doubts. (1) They were Soviet nukes, not Ukrainian; (2) nukes need a lot of money and expertise for maintenance; (3) Ukraine didn't have independent control of the technology; (4) Ukraine didn't have a plausible delivery system ... (5) ... or a plausible policy for deployment and (6) Chernobyl (1986) sums up the state of Soviet engineering at the time.
All true. But on the other hand, despite what pro-Russians say, Ukraine is not a technologically backwards nation. In fact, a lot of the weapons, including high-tech ones, made by the USSR were made in Ukraine. Which is one reason Russia has problems building major warships.
Also, deterrence can occur if enemy nations have reasons to *think* you have got the weapons. If Ukraine had let it be known that they had a program to renew Soviet warheads and delivery systems, along with indications they had such a program ("Oh noes! Our documents were leaked!!!"), then it may well have worked as well as spending much more developing weapons.
Against this; if they had done this, then there might be much less sympathy for them in the civilised world given non-proliferation requirements.
The nuclear warhead programs were not in the Ukraine. A number of the missile programs were.
So the Ukrainians had possession of warheads they didn’t have the designs for. Or the specifications. Or the maintenance details.
Due to a lack of tritium production in Ukraine, all the warheads would become unusable in a year or 2. Tritium decays to Helium-3. Tritium is used in advanced nuclear weapons for 2 things. Boosting the primary (a bomb) and for the secondary (the h bomb bit). Helium-3 is a reaction poison - if even a small percentage of the tritium has turned into Helium-3, the primary will have nearly no yield if the gas is injected for boosting.
If you removed the tritium canisters completely, the primaries would yield perhaps 300 tons (TNT) equivalent. Which would be a very small bang.
And that would be dubious - the rest of the warhead needs maintenance. Soviet plutonium cores had corrosion problems due to crap nickel plating. Yes, really.
Ukraine would really have had to started a bomb program from scratch, using the material from the old Soviet warheads.
But, as you’ve noted, it isn’t that complicated, if you have an existing arms industry and decent engineering expertise.
I'm not accusing Malms of this, but there is a hefty undercurrent of downplaying Ukrainian technology and engineering prowess in much of the talk over Ukraine. I suspect much of this comes from Soviet times, where all the other constituent states were subservient to Russia. The achievements of those states were therefore 'Russian' in the eyes of Russians and their supporters around the world.
We still see it in this war, with people underplaying a lot of the technological stuff Ukraine is doing to keep Russia at bay, preferring to think only of the stuff Ukraine's been given.
This Russian superiority complex might explain the butthurt that Putin and many Russians feel when those 'lesser' states became more prosperous members of another, more open, political block.
He was just (correctly, I think) pointing out that hanging onto and maintaining the Soviet warheads was likely beyond them at the time. Particularly given the then political constraints. Building new, simpler plutonium bombs would be quite another matter now.
We're talking about the technical side of it, not the political. And I disagree that the technical side would have been beyond Ukraine, even setting aside Malms' comments. Pakistan built a nuclear weapons program from scratch to weapons in ?25? years. Ukraine had *far* more going for it - including existent although degrading weapons.
The technical side of *creating* nukes would not have been beyond Ukraine. I've argued that they will probably resort to building nukes in the near future... And given that they will be using reactor grade plutonium they will be some interesting designs.
But they would have had to create a nuclear weapons program from scratch - the weapons they "gave away" were unmaintainable. And they had no money at the time. Feeding people was a problem, let alone weapons.
An advanced multistage warhead is a very elaborate sculpture in physics. To reverse engineer it, is according to those who have built them, is something close to impractical. The nuances in the design and manufacturer that make it easier to build your own design from scratch - unless you had a design and engineering team fluent in building and maintaining advanced multistagers.
Not all nukes are equal: muti-stage hydrogen bombs are the biggies, but not vital to make a boom that no-one wants over their cities.
Again, the mere *threat* of having weapons can be a deterrence. Even if you do not have them.
I would also point out that Pakistan (and NK!) managed to make weapons without bothering too much about the state of the population. And they also had to design and build delivery systems, which can be more expensive than the weapons themselves to develop (witness Manhattan Project cost versus the much more expensive B-29 project. And he sad thing is, in the long run it may have been better if Ukraine had done that. It may have saved many Ukrainian lives.
The B29 project was expensive because they wanted factories to build 10,000 of them. If they had wanted to build a dozen, hand built prototypes for dropping nukes, it would have been much cheaper. See the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-12_Rainbow
(Snip irrelevant stuff)
That's quite an amazing take on the B29 project. In fact, it's utterly wrong.
Firstly, the XF-12 project started in 1943, and first flew in 1946. The B29 project started in 1940, and it first flew in 1942. Yet the B29 was so new, and so complex, than it did not enter service for 18 months after the first flight, with horrendous losses due to technical problems, particularly with the engines. So you are comparing different generations of aircraft, with the XF-12 actually being smaller. And the XF-12 could build on the knowledge gained from the B-29.
Incidentally, the B29 itself took some technical inspiration from the Douglas XB-19, a technical marvel that became a flying laboratory for new technologies. It's also an example of where the government really screwed over a major contractor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XB-19
Also, the B29 was not designed to carry nuclear bombs. The project started well before the Manhattan Project, and a number of bombers had to be altered with larger bomb bays to carry the nuclear weapons (Op. Silverplate, I think). The B29 was a conventional bomber that proved to be the best fit to carry the special weapons. And conventional bombing required vast numbers of bombers.
Finally, the USAF built 744 B52 bombers - on top of all the other bomber types they had at the time, such as the 116 B58s. You did not build just a dozen bombers in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s: you built hundreds, because they were so unreliable and the task so onerous. (The Russians build over 500 TU-95's)
The B29 was so expensive because, like the Manhattan Project, it was pushing the edges of what was possible in early 1940s technology.
"By the end of 1943, although almost 100 aircraft had been delivered, only 15 were airworthy. This prompted an intervention by General Hap Arnold to resolve the problem, with production personnel being sent from the factories to the modification centers to speed availability of sufficient aircraft to equip the first bomb groups in what became known as the "Battle of Kansas". This resulted in 150 aircraft being modified in the five weeks, between 10 March and 15 April 1944."
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal ratings - which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things that for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
We, and Labour, are in a muddle. People are saying they should have campaigned differently - ie more honestly about tax, spend, borrow and so on.
But the thing I notice is that despite Reform's intervention from the right splitting the vote, Labour while winning, both did very badly in % terms and much worse than the polling said. The conclusion has to be that they could easily have lost, just as in 1992.
Sadly the Ming vase strategy was essential. Yes, it limits their options. But there is no such thing as a popular tax rise, and no-one has really suggested (eg CBI today) what they should have done instead.
However, their useless presentation, PR, comms, unforced errors and apparent lack of direction are 100% Labour's fault.
The "ming vase" strategy may have delivered Labour a landslide in 2024 but it may well see them removed from office in 2029 and we wait to see how badly they are defeated...
I’ve posted befor that in time I think Tories will be very happy that Rishi went for that early election. Even though it delivered Labour a huge majority it’s landed the. With many more problems than if later where they would be able to blame even more issues on the last Tory gov.
I think if he left it later then Labour, even with their ineptitude, would have got an huge majority and also survived two terms due to being able to blame even more on the Tories. As it stands Rishi’s gov is starting to look competent in comparison and the economy in a good place.
If the Tories go on to win next election then the early election call will be revised in Tory mythology.
BTW has there been a poll asking a hindsight question such as “having experienced this Labour governments first few months how would you change your vote at the last election?”. Pointless but would be fun to see the results.
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
Rachel Reeves claims today have made her a political hostage to fortune, indeed why dig herself this hole especially after she has already reneged on so many of Labour's pre GE pledges? Is there anyone in No10 or No11 with any understanding of how political messaging works or just how damaging it will be in the longer term if the electorate simple see this Labour Government as totally untrustworthy?
Before this becomes accepted as received wisdom, what are the pre GE pledges Labour has reneged on. To me it looks like they've contorted themselves quite a bit to *not* break pledges. People seem to think there was a promise of no tax rises.. there wasn't and the Tories certainly claimed labour would raise taxes.
Raising National Insurance.
Employers NI is every bit as much a tax on wages as Employees NI is, just as fuel duty is a tax on fuel.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
I see donors are being asked to pay £10k for breakfast with SKS
Seems a bit much for bacon eggs and hostages
It's a lot cheaper at a Premier Inn and unlimited sausages.
Used to be unlimited anything iirc.. and the sausages aren't up to.much or weren't unless they've upped their game.
I am a Premier inn fan. Always comfy beds, decent if not gourmet breakfast and value.
SKS fans would do better there, unless they are buying something else rather than sausages.
Premier Inn is the hotel version of McDonald’s. As a former road warrior, turning up in a strange town late at night you knew it would be good value, clean, and not make you sick!
What the SKS fans are actually buying, of course, is a chat with the PM.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Which is why those saying this petition is unimportant are wrong. It is being used by foreign actors to undermine not just this government, but the country.
In particular, the reason he deserted: "Shortly after the full-scale war began, Anton said he was given what he describes as a “criminal order” - to hold lectures with his troops using very specific written guidelines.
“They said that Ukrainian civilians are combatants and should be destroyed!” he exclaims. “That’s a red line for me - it’s a war crime. I said I won’t spread this propaganda.”"
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
They are spectacularly misinformed. Yaxley-Lennon is not a free speech martyr. He is a serial criminal in prison for contempt of court, to which he pleaded guilty.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
Musky Baby really ought to come onto PB. He'd see how speech can be free - as it pretty much is here - and informative. Also often self-policed. And how an online community can be generally a pleasanter place than the cesspit he has turned Twitter into.
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal ratings - which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things that for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
We, and Labour, are in a muddle. People are saying they should have campaigned differently - ie more honestly about tax, spend, borrow and so on.
But the thing I notice is that despite Reform's intervention from the right splitting the vote, Labour while winning, both did very badly in % terms and much worse than the polling said. The conclusion has to be that they could easily have lost, just as in 1992.
Sadly the Ming vase strategy was essential. Yes, it limits their options. But there is no such thing as a popular tax rise, and no-one has really suggested (eg CBI today) what they should have done instead.
However, their useless presentation, PR, comms, unforced errors and apparent lack of direction are 100% Labour's fault.
The "ming vase" strategy may have delivered Labour a landslide in 2024 but it may well see them removed from office in 2029 and we wait to see how badly they are defeated...
I’ve posted befor that in time I think Tories will be very happy that Rishi went for that early election. Even though it delivered Labour a huge majority it’s landed the. With many more problems than if later where they would be able to blame even more issues on the last Tory gov.
I think if he left it later then Labour, even with their ineptitude, would have got an huge majority and also survived two terms due to being able to blame even more on the Tories. As it stands Rishi’s gov is starting to look competent in comparison and the economy in a good place.
If the Tories go on to win next election then the early election call will be revised in Tory mythology.
BTW has there been a poll asking a hindsight question such as “having experienced this Labour governments first few months how would you change your vote at the last election?”. Pointless but would be fun to see the results.
I suspect most people wanted the Tories out and maybe would have voted Lib Dem instead of Labour. Not sure what that would have done to the result.
However, many crucial details of what the reforms will mean in practice have not been confirmed, and it is understood such decisions will not be made until next year. For example, the government has said young people must take up offers of a job or training, or lose their benefits, but it has not spelled out how such sanctions will work or when they will come into force.
Did they not make any detailed plans before getting into government? Everybody knows this is a huge problem with somewhere between 8 and 10 million economically inactive and needs to be tackled.
Decisions won’t be made until next year? What? A whole month away?
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
They are spectacularly misinformed. Yaxley-Lennon is not a free speech martyr. He is a serial criminal in prison for contempt of court, to which he pleaded guilty.
Indeed so.
Lots of Americans think he’s a journalist who’s been imprisoned for showing the output of his journalism, whereas in fact he’s been imprisoned for contempt of court, having been ordered to stop repeating a libel for which he’s already been found guilty.
American courts wouldn’t throw you in prison, they’d simply bankrupt you (see Alex Jones / Infowars and Tucker Carlson / Fox News).
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
The Telegraph is up for sale. Musk can buy it.
Having said which, a lot of what Musk is doing is retweeting with the odd approving word or emoji. Whether he bothers to read and understand the originals is open to question. We have had plenty of our own cases where politicians are taken to task for "liking" a decade-old post which contained an unfortunate turn of phrase in paragraph three.
In particular, the reason he deserted: "Shortly after the full-scale war began, Anton said he was given what he describes as a “criminal order” - to hold lectures with his troops using very specific written guidelines.
“They said that Ukrainian civilians are combatants and should be destroyed!” he exclaims. “That’s a red line for me - it’s a war crime. I said I won’t spread this propaganda.”"
He also said, contrary to a lot of hopecasting, that the Russian Nuclear weapons are in good order and not falling apart - no reason for him to make that up sadly.
However, many crucial details of what the reforms will mean in practice have not been confirmed, and it is understood such decisions will not be made until next year. For example, the government has said young people must take up offers of a job or training, or lose their benefits, but it has not spelled out how such sanctions will work or when they will come into force.
Did they not make any detailed plans before getting into government? Everybody knows this is a huge problem with somewhere between 8 and 10 million economically inactive and needs to be tackled.
Decisions won’t be made until next year? What? A whole month away?
That’s not the longest of grass.
Or it means the 25-26 fiscal year, again not that far away. In any case it will need the far from dynamic DWP to do the detail.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
Musky Baby really ought to come onto PB. He'd see how speech can be free - as it pretty much is here - and informative. Also often self-policed. And how an online community can be generally a pleasanter place than the cesspit he has turned Twitter into.
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal ratings - which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things that for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
We, and Labour, are in a muddle. People are saying they should have campaigned differently - ie more honestly about tax, spend, borrow and so on.
But the thing I notice is that despite Reform's intervention from the right splitting the vote, Labour while winning, both did very badly in % terms and much worse than the polling said. The conclusion has to be that they could easily have lost, just as in 1992.
Sadly the Ming vase strategy was essential. Yes, it limits their options. But there is no such thing as a popular tax rise, and no-one has really suggested (eg CBI today) what they should have done instead.
However, their useless presentation, PR, comms, unforced errors and apparent lack of direction are 100% Labour's fault.
The "ming vase" strategy may have delivered Labour a landslide in 2024 but it may well see them removed from office in 2029 and we wait to see how badly they are defeated...
I’ve posted befor that in time I think Tories will be very happy that Rishi went for that early election. Even though it delivered Labour a huge majority it’s landed the. With many more problems than if later where they would be able to blame even more issues on the last Tory gov.
I think if he left it later then Labour, even with their ineptitude, would have got an huge majority and also survived two terms due to being able to blame even more on the Tories. As it stands Rishi’s gov is starting to look competent in comparison and the economy in a good place.
If the Tories go on to win next election then the early election call will be revised in Tory mythology.
BTW has there been a poll asking a hindsight question such as “having experienced this Labour governments first few months how would you change your vote at the last election?”. Pointless but would be fun to see the results.
I suspect most people wanted the Tories out and maybe would have voted Lib Dem instead of Labour. Not sure what that would have done to the result.
Would probably have been much the same result for much the same reasons.
The only real difference is that by now the Conservative Party would have had a few less months of denial, and the long rehab process would barely have started.
On the 'Assisted Dying' Bill, aspects that I have not seen discussed:
1 - Conscience clauses.
A lot of Medics are motivated by their ethical beliefs, whether religious or other. Get this wrong and a lot of medics could be lost.
When I have seen cases of Drs killing their patients or 'helping them die' or engaging in 'mercy-killing' in the past, whatever the circumlocution used, there has often seemed to me to have been an ideologically motived decision to break the law.
I'm not sure what that says about likely adherence to any legal framework, whatever it turns out to be.
I have not seen conversation around abuse of such laws elsewhere, slippery slopes and so on.
4 - Commons Procedure
AIUI Commons debate time is limited to 5 hours, with a vague promise about later committee stages.
That time is derisory, and with no guarantee of proper debate some may decide there is no option other than to stop the bill in its tracks until there is an opportunity for careful consideration.
Anecdote: When my own dad died from asbestosis around 2009, I had a short conversation with the Macmillan Nurse about amount of morphia, and she was beyond adamant that supplying more than required for pain relief could *not* be considered by them - that would be in the professional ethical framework.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Wait until he hears about the Russian government...
I see donors are being asked to pay £10k for breakfast with SKS
Seems a bit much for bacon eggs and hostages
It's a lot cheaper at a Premier Inn and unlimited sausages.
Used to be unlimited anything iirc.. and the sausages aren't up to.much or weren't unless they've upped their game.
I am a Premier inn fan. Always comfy beds, decent if not gourmet breakfast and value.
SKS fans would do better there, unless they are buying something else rather than sausages.
Premier Inn is the hotel version of McDonald’s. As a former road warrior, turning up in a strange town late at night you knew it would be good value, clean, and not make you sick!
What the SKS fans are actually buying, of course, is a chat with the PM.
I'd pay good money not to be stuck in an elevator with SKS
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
Rachel Reeves claims today have made her a political hostage to fortune, indeed why dig herself this hole especially after she has already reneged on so many of Labour's pre GE pledges? Is there anyone in No10 or No11 with any understanding of how political messaging works or just how damaging it will be in the longer term if the electorate simple see this Labour Government as totally untrustworthy?
Before this becomes accepted as received wisdom, what are the pre GE pledges Labour has reneged on. To me it looks like they've contorted themselves quite a bit to *not* break pledges. People seem to think there was a promise of no tax rises.. there wasn't and the Tories certainly claimed labour would raise taxes.
Raising National Insurance.
Employers NI is every bit as much a tax on wages as Employees NI is, just as fuel duty is a tax on fuel.
It would be interesting to see the exact wording of the pledge, and no I'm not going to trawl through the Labour manifesto on a day when I need to be at work early.
My assumption was that the Tories weren't raising enough in tax either, but as they would prefer to featherbed wealthy people, which I am not, I would be better off under Labour.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
The Telegraph is up for sale. Musk can buy it.
Having said which, a lot of what Musk is doing is retweeting with the odd approving word or emoji. Whether he bothers to read and understand the originals is open to question. We have had plenty of our own cases where politicians are taken to task for "liking" a decade-old post which contained an unfortunate turn of phrase in paragraph three.
There is a definite trend to what Musk likes or endorses though, whether he's reading it personally or delegates it to an underling, it's right to far right. Unless someone wants to out themselves, I haven't seen anyone on here question the imprisonment of Yaxley-Lennon.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
Musky Baby really ought to come onto PB. He'd see how speech can be free - as it pretty much is here - and informative. Also often self-policed. And how an online community can be generally a pleasanter place than the cesspit he has turned Twitter into.
Steven Swinford @stevenswinford.bsky.social · 6h Keir Starmer is this week conducting face-to-face interviews with four candidates to be Cabinet Secretary:
Olly Robbins Antonia Romeo Tamara Finkelstein Chris Wormald
If he goes for Romeo or Finkelstein it would be the first female Cabinet Secretary in history
An interesting test of the idea that Starmer has a problem with women.
Three public schools, at least two PPEs, and all four went to Oxford. Woke DEI in action!
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
The Telegraph is up for sale. Musk can buy it.
Having said which, a lot of what Musk is doing is retweeting with the odd approving word or emoji. Whether he bothers to read and understand the originals is open to question. We have had plenty of our own cases where politicians are taken to task for "liking" a decade-old post which contained an unfortunate turn of phrase in paragraph three.
There a law of diminishing returns in buying media properties to vent your ego.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
They are spectacularly misinformed. Yaxley-Lennon is not a free speech martyr. He is a serial criminal in prison for contempt of court, to which he pleaded guilty.
Indeed so.
Lots of Americans think he’s a journalist who’s been imprisoned for showing the output of his journalism, whereas in fact he’s been imprisoned for contempt of court, having been ordered to stop repeating a libel for which he’s already been found guilty.
American courts wouldn’t throw you in prison, they’d simply bankrupt you (see Alex Jones / Infowars and Tucker Carlson / Fox News).
If you continue in contempt of court, they certainly will.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
The Telegraph is up for sale. Musk can buy it.
Having said which, a lot of what Musk is doing is retweeting with the odd approving word or emoji. Whether he bothers to read and understand the originals is open to question. We have had plenty of our own cases where politicians are taken to task for "liking" a decade-old post which contained an unfortunate turn of phrase in paragraph three.
Yes, and he’s doing it hundreds of times a day, as if he was making notes to himself about what’s going on in the world for later research.
He’s definitely not noticing that some opinions are very controversial, or are being made by people who have been ‘cancelled’ or in trouble for controversial views in the past, and often confuses satire for reality and vice-versa. I guess it drives ‘engagement’ on the platform when he has 200m followers though, so it’s easy to see why he does it.
Cable ‘news’ channel MSNBC is also up for sale in the US, and there’s plenty of suggestions that EM might be interested in buying that!
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
What I don't know if why dig this hole. The people at the CBI aren't stupid, they have seen what the IFS have to say and but she decided to sit there and lie to them. And can now be used against her in a couple of years time.
Rachel Reeves claims today have made her a political hostage to fortune, indeed why dig herself this hole especially after she has already reneged on so many of Labour's pre GE pledges? Is there anyone in No10 or No11 with any understanding of how political messaging works or just how damaging it will be in the longer term if the electorate simple see this Labour Government as totally untrustworthy?
Before this becomes accepted as received wisdom, what are the pre GE pledges Labour has reneged on. To me it looks like they've contorted themselves quite a bit to *not* break pledges. People seem to think there was a promise of no tax rises.. there wasn't and the Tories certainly claimed labour would raise taxes.
Raising National Insurance.
Employers NI is every bit as much a tax on wages as Employees NI is, just as fuel duty is a tax on fuel.
It would be interesting to see the exact wording of the pledge, and no I'm not going to trawl through the Labour manifesto on a day when I need to be at work early.
My assumption was that the Tories weren't raising enough in tax either, but as they would prefer to featherbed wealthy people, which I am not, I would be better off under Labour.
and then they backed themselves into a corner during the election.
the fix was 3p on income tax whilst keeping the WFA...
Obviously the petition is going nowhere, but I think it does highlight a fundamental truth for why we are seeing the plummet in Labour's support and in Starmers personal ratings - which is that on taking office Labour have been very cynically doing things that for which they have no mandate.
The point was raised by Sir John Curtice during the election that Labour would have been better telling people what they planned to do rather than blatantly being dishonest.
Yes, they may only have formed a government with a majority of 50 rather than 170 but they would have been in a much better position now to actually implement the policies they are implementing.
This very much seems to be shaping up to be a one term government and most of that is because Labour wasn't transparent before and during the election.
We, and Labour, are in a muddle. People are saying they should have campaigned differently - ie more honestly about tax, spend, borrow and so on.
But the thing I notice is that despite Reform's intervention from the right splitting the vote, Labour while winning, both did very badly in % terms and much worse than the polling said. The conclusion has to be that they could easily have lost, just as in 1992.
Sadly the Ming vase strategy was essential. Yes, it limits their options. But there is no such thing as a popular tax rise, and no-one has really suggested (eg CBI today) what they should have done instead.
However, their useless presentation, PR, comms, unforced errors and apparent lack of direction are 100% Labour's fault.
The "ming vase" strategy may have delivered Labour a landslide in 2024 but it may well see them removed from office in 2029 and we wait to see how badly they are defeated...
I’ve posted befor that in time I think Tories will be very happy that Rishi went for that early election. Even though it delivered Labour a huge majority it’s landed the. With many more problems than if later where they would be able to blame even more issues on the last Tory gov.
I think if he left it later then Labour, even with their ineptitude, would have got an huge majority and also survived two terms due to being able to blame even more on the Tories. As it stands Rishi’s gov is starting to look competent in comparison and the economy in a good place.
If the Tories go on to win next election then the early election call will be revised in Tory mythology.
BTW has there been a poll asking a hindsight question such as “having experienced this Labour governments first few months how would you change your vote at the last election?”. Pointless but would be fun to see the results.
I suspect most people wanted the Tories out and maybe would have voted Lib Dem instead of Labour. Not sure what that would have done to the result.
Wouldn't have affected my vote - but probably would have changed Leon's. And we know there are many Leons.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
Watching Americans react to UK speech laws is quite interesting. It’s one of the biggest cultural differences between the two countries.
Musky Baby really ought to come onto PB. He'd see how speech can be free - as it pretty much is here - and informative. Also often self-policed. And how an online community can be generally a pleasanter place than the cesspit he has turned Twitter into.
Be careful what you wish for.
Plus in that eventuality one of PB’s most long-standing (if shape shifting) posters might wank himself to death, and we wouldn’t want that.
Comments
Home Alone is Die Hard for kids.
Home Alone is unquestionably a Christmas movie.
Die Hard is unquestionably a Christmas movie.
Increased taxes and increased borrowing on the way from 2026.
Correction, increased taxes and increased borrowing continuing apace since 2002.
These are genuine questions to which I don't know the answer at present.
PrinceJagggggggggggEdit -
Symbol - The former Car Company known as Jaggggggggg
Usually that's can kicking, but at some point we run out of road (have you seen the cost of road construction after all?).
Such as a film you first saw at Christmas season, and watched a second time at Christmas etc so you personally associate it with Christmas. My Dad says Ben Hur is a Christmas movie - to me that’s bonkers it’s actually about Easter - because he says it was screened every Christmas when he was young, with Spartacus and Wizard of Oz. So anything that “reminds you” of Christmas can show up in Christmas film polling.
reminds you of Christmas makes it Christmas film?
@TSE I have sent you a proper header where I put everybody right on macro economics. Some of the recent headers are turning PB into the Daily Star.
But it's also easy to go too far the other way. Jack Reacher 2 takes place at Halloween, pretty randomly, it doesn't make it a Halloween film.
The Budget was horrendous. It jacked up taxes and increased borrowing. Far from closing a fiscal black hole, it dramatically increased it.
The choice she has is:
1: Admit future tax rises now.
2: Admit future borrowing rises now.
3: Admit future spending cuts now.
4: Change policies now so they don't need to happen.
5: Be in denial and hope something comes that saves the day so its not necessary.
She's chosen the last option.
"Yvette Cooper plans to expand non-crime hate incidents despite Pearson row"
https://freespeechunion.org/yvette-cooper-plans-to-expand-non-crime-hate-incidents-despite-pearson-row/
Steven Swinford @stevenswinford.bsky.social
·
6h
Keir Starmer is this week conducting face-to-face interviews with four candidates to be Cabinet Secretary:
Olly Robbins
Antonia Romeo
Tamara Finkelstein
Chris Wormald
If he goes for Romeo or Finkelstein it would be the first female Cabinet Secretary in history
Correct me where wrong: If voters have switched in anger at Brexit, anger at Partygate, and anger at their cost of living eroded, political comeback on General Election day surely equates to that anger and hatred of Tories going away?
It’s perfectly possible a lot of people feel personally better off and public services in better hands and economy in better hands in 2029, than they remember feeling about it all in 2024, giving Labour another landslide win will really bring home how voters have switched, and what a hole the Conservatives are in, and discipline on messaging, and incredible hard work and ground game needed to fight back and be in with any sort of chance in 2034.
The idea that to then make it even worse by other people's views as to what's best for you prevailing over your own views is what is really repugnant.
Lord Falconer is absolutely right - the people objecting are doing so for religious / moral reasons. If they were genuinely concerned about the details of the safeguards then they would say how they think the safeguards can be improved. But they aren't doing that.
Imposing religious views on everyone is what happens in a theocracy - eg in Iran and Afghanistan.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country do not want our laws determined by other people's religious beliefs - hence the huge public support for assisted dying.
If you are religious and against assisted dying then that's absolutely fine - don't have one. But don't tell everyone else what to do.
Trump announces blanket tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China
The grid, and the electricity market itself are separate things.
One point to note is that we’re paying a lot of money for surplus capacity not to be used. Even if it were given away free, to be used by a local producer close to where it’s generated, it would be economically beneficial to the country.
Sold for cash at sub market rates, it would benefit producers, and reduce the need for constraint payments.
More locally generated and used energy would also reduce the requirement for paying for increased grid capacity - and benefit regional development.
So he's quitting the USMCA then?
IE the free trade agreement between the USA, Canada and Mexico signed by his predecessor *checks notes* President Donald J. Trump.
I had no idea Canada was flooding the US with "aliens".
Eh???
Also 25% on Canada and Mexico but only 10% on China....
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/whats-wrong-with-the-case-against
Note that some parts of the UK - notably Scotland - pay higher prices than elsewhere, despite their generating locally the cheapest electricity. That “excessively high prices” already.
Then there’s the point that the non generation costs can swamp the generation costs; local pricing has the potential to reduce the former:
… The reason we are debating locational pricing is precisely because the grid balancing part of our electricity bills is far too high and is set to grow even higher. If a shift to local pricing slashes balancing costs, as Ofgem estimates it will, then it is possible for the final bill households pay to fall in every part of the country even if the wholesale part of their electricity bill goes up...
NY Times blog
Sick buckets will be made available.
Peter Santenello did a couple of very good videos.
At US/Canada Border With Sheriff's Office
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXdu8gkNLTk
Inside the Massachusetts Nobody Talks About
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVNxFJzy3ag
He’s not in office yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3Dp6EdFRHo
In a sense that is hopeful. 2025 is never properly happening with the clown in charge.
Premier League and Channel 4 to train teenagers in Labour’s £45m work drive
...However, further measures to overhaul the multibillion-pound health and disability benefits system are not expected until next year....
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/26/premier-league-and-channel-4-to-train-teenagers-in-labours-45m-work-drive
However, many crucial details of what the reforms will mean in practice have not been confirmed, and it is understood such decisions will not be made until next year. For example, the government has said young people must take up offers of a job or training, or lose their benefits, but it has not spelled out how such sanctions will work or when they will come into force.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxwv3n87g4o
Did they not make any detailed plans before getting into government? Everybody knows this is a huge problem with somewhere between 8 and 10 million economically inactive and needs to be tackled.
Musk targets Trump’s favorite fighter jet
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/25/congress/musk-makes-the-case-for-drones-00191606
… “Manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones,” he wrote on Monday. In another instance, Musk responded with the “100” emoji to another user’s tweet that “Drone superiority is the new air superiority.”
He also shared a video of Chinese drones and said “Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”..
Those “idiots” include the Chinese.
In this case, Musk is probably the idiot.
The F35 might be obsolete in a decade or so’s time; it certainly isn’t now. And there are no drones, either in production or near term development, with the capacity to replace it.
Thankfully, we still have at least one working snatch Land Rover and half a dozen men with SA80s with a couple of mags of ammo, provided it's not the weekend, so that'll be all good.
They are right wing Canadians, some of whom make Texans look like bleeding heart liberals, but they are Canadian through and through and would never agree to that.
Truth. Honesty. Transparency. They are ALWAYS the key attributes in politics.
Labour before the election was Untruthful. Dishonest. And lacked transparency. They will now suffer the consequences...
Normally that would be OK as we'd have a moderate, center-right Conservative Party waiting in the wings... and we may still do so...
BUT... The specter of Farage and Reform looms large and it's distinctly possible that Labours disingenuousness will lead to a very nasty Ref/Con government with Farage as PM.
Hopefully not, but...
So I am not surprised to see that he has already handed the Loser two defeats.
Three public schools, at least two PPEs, and all four went to Oxford. Woke DEI in action!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jmnjj9p3o
The prop gravestone from the 1984 film with George C Scott as Scrooge, that had become a minor tourist attraction in Shrewsbury, has been vandalised.
Firstly, the XF-12 project started in 1943, and first flew in 1946. The B29 project started in 1940, and it first flew in 1942. Yet the B29 was so new, and so complex, than it did not enter service for 18 months after the first flight, with horrendous losses due to technical problems, particularly with the engines. So you are comparing different generations of aircraft, with the XF-12 actually being smaller. And the XF-12 could build on the knowledge gained from the B-29.
Incidentally, the B29 itself took some technical inspiration from the Douglas XB-19, a technical marvel that became a flying laboratory for new technologies. It's also an example of where the government really screwed over a major contractor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XB-19
Also, the B29 was not designed to carry nuclear bombs. The project started well before the Manhattan Project, and a number of bombers had to be altered with larger bomb bays to carry the nuclear weapons (Op. Silverplate, I think). The B29 was a conventional bomber that proved to be the best fit to carry the special weapons. And conventional bombing required vast numbers of bombers.
Finally, the USAF built 744 B52 bombers - on top of all the other bomber types they had at the time, such as the 116 B58s. You did not build just a dozen bombers in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s: you built hundreds, because they were so unreliable and the task so onerous. (The Russians build over 500 TU-95's)
The B29 was so expensive because, like the Manhattan Project, it was pushing the edges of what was possible in early 1940s technology.
"By the end of 1943, although almost 100 aircraft had been delivered, only 15 were airworthy. This prompted an intervention by General Hap Arnold to resolve the problem, with production personnel being sent from the factories to the modification centers to speed availability of sufficient aircraft to equip the first bomb groups in what became known as the "Battle of Kansas". This resulted in 150 aircraft being modified in the five weeks, between 10 March and 15 April 1944."
F1: new team on the grid for 2026. First time for bloody ages we've had more than 10.
I think if he left it later then Labour, even with their ineptitude, would have got an huge majority and also survived two terms due to being able to blame even more on the Tories. As it stands Rishi’s gov is starting to look competent in comparison and the economy in a good place.
If the Tories go on to win next election then the early election call will be revised in Tory mythology.
BTW has there been a poll asking a hindsight question such as “having experienced this Labour governments first few months how would you change your vote at the last election?”. Pointless but would be fun to see the results.
Employers NI is every bit as much a tax on wages as Employees NI is, just as fuel duty is a tax on fuel.
SKS fans would do better there, unless they are buying something else rather than sausages.
"Elon Musk backs calIs for election to remove "tyrannical" uk government"
I see that the Telegraph is now fully committed to billionaire oligarchic rule over democratically elected rule.
This was always it's underlying function, but it's now so far gone I
wouldn't trust it not to become the leading propaganda outlet, in any Orbanisation of the U.K.
What the SKS fans are actually buying, of course, is a chat with the PM.
Like them or not, Labour won a free election. The term is not six months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dl2pv0yj0o
In particular, the reason he deserted:
"Shortly after the full-scale war began, Anton said he was given what he describes as a “criminal order” - to hold lectures with his troops using very specific written guidelines.
“They said that Ukrainian civilians are combatants and should be destroyed!” he exclaims. “That’s a red line for me - it’s a war crime. I said I won’t spread this propaganda.”"
That’s not the longest of grass.
Lots of Americans think he’s a journalist who’s been imprisoned for showing the output of his journalism, whereas in fact he’s been imprisoned for contempt of court, having been ordered to stop repeating a libel for which he’s already been found guilty.
American courts wouldn’t throw you in prison, they’d simply bankrupt you (see Alex Jones / Infowars and Tucker Carlson / Fox News).
Having said which, a lot of what Musk is doing is retweeting with the odd approving word or emoji. Whether he bothers to read and understand the originals is open to question. We have had plenty of our own cases where politicians are taken to task for "liking" a decade-old post which contained an unfortunate turn of phrase in paragraph three.
The only real difference is that by now the Conservative Party would have had a few less months of denial, and the long rehab process would barely have started.
1 - Conscience clauses.
A lot of Medics are motivated by their ethical beliefs, whether religious or other. Get this wrong and a lot of medics could be lost.
When I have seen cases of Drs killing their patients or 'helping them die' or engaging in 'mercy-killing' in the past, whatever the circumlocution used, there has often seemed to me to have been an ideologically motived decision to break the law.
I'm not sure what that says about likely adherence to any legal framework, whatever it turns out to be.
( @Foxy ?)
2 - Economics & other Bias
Medics making decisions *will* take their budgets into account, and will have difficulty finding the best interest of the patient.
A decent summary of "anti" arguments is here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml
3 - Abuse in places where such laws exist
I have not seen conversation around abuse of such laws elsewhere, slippery slopes and so on.
4 - Commons Procedure
AIUI Commons debate time is limited to 5 hours, with a vague promise about later committee stages.
That time is derisory, and with no guarantee of proper debate some may decide there is no option other than to stop the bill in its tracks until there is an opportunity for careful consideration.
Anecdote: When my own dad died from asbestosis around 2009, I had a short conversation with the Macmillan Nurse about amount of morphia, and she was beyond adamant that supplying more than required for pain relief could *not* be considered by them - that would be in the professional ethical framework.
Oh. Wait.
My assumption was that the Tories weren't raising enough in tax either, but as they would prefer to featherbed wealthy people, which I am not, I would be better off under Labour.
Unless someone wants to out themselves, I haven't seen anyone on here question the imprisonment of Yaxley-Lennon.
He’s definitely not noticing that some opinions are very controversial, or are being made by people who have been ‘cancelled’ or in trouble for controversial views in the past, and often confuses satire for reality and vice-versa. I guess it drives ‘engagement’ on the platform when he has 200m followers though, so it’s easy to see why he does it.
Cable ‘news’ channel MSNBC is also up for sale in the US, and there’s plenty of suggestions that EM might be interested in buying that!
the fix was 3p on income tax whilst keeping the WFA...
And we know there are many Leons.