Mrs J made a comment about the Greggggg's 'excuse' that interested me. The reason why the complaints might be coming from middle-class women of a 'certain age' might be because they had had decades of putting up with this sort of shite from men, and may have the finances and support to survive if they never work in the industry again.
Younger women might be much more frightened of what a backlash might do to their formative careers to speak out.
I reckon there might be something to that.
Have you seen who was complaining , more likely he was frightened of them
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
And it's subsidised to the hilt - attacking HFCS is a proxy for attacking agricultural subsidies, which seems to be an odd choice for Trump's rural voter base.
It's not really used in the UK, apart from in some low-volume imports, but Rishi clambered on board the anti-HFCS bandwagon when he went on about preferring Mexican Coke to those A-Level students a few years back (not sure why - Coke in the UK uses sugar beet).
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
Meanwhile MSM are fixated on suits, Tickets and lost phones.
You're simply complaining that SKS is a total twat.
I was pointed out on here that running a campaign where he said zilch, would come to bite him in the arse as he had built no positions on which to define his government. He still hasn't and has no ideas.
So unsurprisingly the media run with the story SKS is an arse.
He is pretty ineffectual so far. The link to a comment from John Curtice that TUD posted was very damning.
The trend from the start of the election to polling day was labours vote share fell. That has continued since.
How does he turn it around from here ? Complaining about how the press report it, well that’s politics. It was no different when the Tories were in charge. It’s how things are and if they deliver rather than just worry about presentation then I expect things to come good for them. If not it’s over.
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
An eg A5 sheet of 100gsm paper is 2^5 = 32 sheets per 100g (A0 is 0.9995 sqm), so it is a good weigh (sorry) to measure. And being therefore 3g each at that size, it is a big enough margin to judge quantity on cheapish scales.
And every Council in the land has them by the dozen.
Pity the left over Imperial countries measuring Junior Tabloid voting slips in Pounds and Ounces.
The ballot papers aren't A5. In Cavan-Monaghan they had 20 candidates, and the ballot papers have a photo for every one of them.
But, yes. It's probably surprisingly practical.
Given that politics is show business for ugly people - is it wise to have photos of them on the ballot papers?
My wife did say that the photo of one of the independent candidates ruled him out straight away. He ended up with 29 votes.
But for some candidates it will help voters see the all-important familial resemblance.
An eg A5 sheet of 100gsm paper is 2^5 = 32 sheets per 100g (A0 is 0.9995 sqm), so it is a good weigh (sorry) to measure. And being therefore 3g each at that size, it is a big enough margin to judge quantity on cheapish scales.
And every Council in the land has them by the dozen.
Pity the left over Imperial countries measuring Junior Tabloid voting slips in Pounds and Ounces.
The ballot papers aren't A5. In Cavan-Monaghan they had 20 candidates, and the ballot papers have a photo for every one of them.
But, yes. It's probably surprisingly practical.
Given that politics is show business for ugly people - is it wise to have photos of them on the ballot papers?
My wife did say that the photo of one of the independent candidates ruled him out straight away. He ended up with 29 votes.
But for some candidates it will help voters see the all-important familial resemblance.
What about the candidates wearing black balaclavas?
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
Meanwhile MSM are fixated on suits, Tickets and lost phones.
You're simply complaining that SKS is a total twat.
I was pointed out on here that running a campaign where he said zilch, would come to bite him in the arse as he had built no positions on which to define his government. He still hasn't and has no ideas.
So unsurprisingly the media run with the story SKS is an arse.
He is pretty ineffectual so far. The link to a comment from John Curtice that TUD posted was very damning.
The trend from the start of the election to polling day was labours vote share fell. That has continued since.
How does he turn it around from here ? Complaining about how the press report it, well that’s politics. It was no different when the Tories were in charge. It’s how things are and if they deliver rather than just worry about presentation then I expect things to come good for them. If not it’s over.
My response to the bit on bold is...unfortunately not. "Deliverism" may not work, see this link[1]. Harris's campaign eschewed deliverism in favour of vibes and "joy!", which failed, so we don't know how deliverism would have worked in practice, but I suspect it would have failed also.
I referred to myself earlier as politically homeless, and I am forced to concede I don't know how politics works any more. I'm pretty sure that neoliberalism and the Sixth Party System has died, and I'm very sure I won't like what's coming next, but I don't know what it is. I suspect the answer will be found in gut instinct (one of the reasons why I biught up religion in the "Hell" article) and hindbrain stuff, instead of rationalisation. When you find out what is happening, let me know...
They’d have been better sticking 2p on income tax, telling us straight what a mess we are all in, and used that shedload of money to go achieve something worthwhile.
Instead they’ve tried to raise some small change by annoying those singled out to contribute, and tried to raise some more by lumping extra tax on employers, which will simply come back to bite consumers through higher prices for this and that and that.
They should have realised they were destined to win the election anyway, given the abject failure of the Tories, and not boxed themselves in for a term with a bunch of idiotic promises.
Like Blair, they risk under performing during their first term, through timidity. Unlike Blair, a second term isn’t by any means guaranteed.
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
How does what I've posted indicate a misapprehension on my part? I haven't stated anything about either substance.
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
How does what I've posted indicate a misapprehension on my part? I haven't stated anything about either substance.
Apologies - had been muddled by your general approval of anti-processed food policies. Anyway, your question is now answered.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
How does what I've posted indicate a misapprehension on my part? I haven't stated anything about either substance.
I think there's an assumption you'd have been wrong.
They’d have been better sticking 2p on income tax, telling us straight what a mess we are all in, and used that shedload of money to go achieve something worthwhile.
I make 2p on income tax as raising a little under £10bn per annum.
AFAICS that's a scratch on the surface of what is needed in extra revenue.
That would just about do an uptick in Defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, assuming we are starting from 2.1%.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
"Since I have been manager, I am proud to say there have only been twenty-three deaths. And not one of them was a staff member."
Transform Politics 🦋 @tf_politics Damning verdict on Starmer’s government from pollster Sir John Curtice.
“The fundamental question is whether a politician who has shown so far absolutely no ability to construct a narrative can suddenly construct a narrative”.
I challenge ANY PM to build a narrative when 90% of the MSM Print and TV media will steadfastly refuse to report it let alone pass impartial comment on it..
For those who ARE discecting fact from Fiction Labour are in the process of some significant improvements and enhancements across all of the main Sectors of State
Meanwhile MSM are fixated on suits, Tickets and lost phones.
You're simply complaining that SKS is a total twat.
I was pointed out on here that running a campaign where he said zilch, would come to bite him in the arse as he had built no positions on which to define his government. He still hasn't and has no ideas.
So unsurprisingly the media run with the story SKS is an arse.
He is pretty ineffectual so far. The link to a comment from John Curtice that TUD posted was very damning.
The trend from the start of the election to polling day was labours vote share fell. That has continued since.
How does he turn it around from here ? Complaining about how the press report it, well that’s politics. It was no different when the Tories were in charge. It’s how things are and if they deliver rather than just worry about presentation then I expect things to come good for them. If not it’s over.
My response to the bit on bold is...unfortunately not. "Deliverism" may not work, see this link[1]. Harris's campaign eschewed deliverism in favour of vibes and "joy!", which failed, so we don't know how deliverism would have worked in practice, but I suspect it would have failed also.
I referred to myself earlier as politically homeless, and I am forced to concede I don't know how politics works any more. I'm pretty sure that neoliberalism and the Sixth Party System has died, and I'm very sure I won't like what's coming next, but I don't know what it is. I suspect the answer will be found in gut instinct (one of the reasons why I biught up religion in the "Hell" article) and hindbrain stuff, instead of rationalisation. When you find out what is happening, let me know...
Rare but never out of fashion is the combination of competence, humility, delivery without triumphalism, first class communication, answering questions, admitting you don't know, honesty and simplicity of narrative. Worth a try. Oddly all the other routes seem to be failing, and I don't want to sample Reform's approach.
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
Sucrose is broken down into its fructose and glucose components by stomach acid. (And possibly also by the acidity of Coke itself ?)
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
"Since I have been manager, I am proud to say there have only been twenty-three deaths. And not one of them was a staff member."
Not of strict relevance, and being somewhat bemused by my leisure centre's incompetence in some matters, when a swimmer had a heart attack in the changing rooms earlier in the year, the staff were absolutely 100% brilliant in both managing the casualty and the other people present.
They’d have been better sticking 2p on income tax, telling us straight what a mess we are all in, and used that shedload of money to go achieve something worthwhile.
I make 2p on income tax as raising a little under £10bn per annum.
AFAICS that's a scratch on the surface of what is needed in extra revenue.
That would just about do an uptick in Defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, assuming we are starting from 2.1%.
Yes. In very rough figures it seems to me that to be reasonably relaxed about expenditure and contingencies (there will be some) we need to either increase government income by about £100bn or decrease government commitments by about £100bn. A 70% rise in VAT might do it, or about 18p on IT. Neither are cheering prospects.
The alternative is to carry on borrowing until UK plc belongs to Karloans and Wonga Ltd following a CCJ.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
To be fair, you'd find any reason not to spend an early morning with Piers Morgan.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
To be fair, you'd find any reason not to spend an early morning with Piers Morgan.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Actually, Starmer's ministers and advisors are very typical of the pool from which they are drawn - middle management public sector, trade union, third sector and second-rate lawyers.
Plenty of obsessive single-issue causes, from net zero to releasing criminals early to decolonising education to boosting public sector pay. But no experience in business or the armed forces, so no understanding of how to generate economic growth to pay for their fantasies or how to defend the country.
So we get what 20% of us, anyway, voted for in July - five years of depressing stagnation and increasingly fractious relative decline.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
It's not as though Andrew Neil is wrong. It shows major weakness to boycott Times Radio ..who next....
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
Boycotting the media is always a measure of success or failure in government….
A plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
To be fair, you'd find any reason not to spend an early morning with Piers Morgan.
Indeed, or for that matter any other time of day.
Which is why the ultimate sanction on PB is to be locked in a room with Piers Morgan, Piers Corbyn and Julian Assange.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Still, he hasn't invaded Iraq yet.
Honestly, the reaction of the old Blairites to their not automatically being treated as founts of wisdom by the new govt is fairly hilarious. You'd think that, more than 20 years on from trashing their own legacies, they'd have made their peace with ending their days in irrelevance and ignominy, but clearly not all of them have got the message.
Does anyone know if it's just "gizza job" Mandelson behind these comments, or is it Blair himself who's feeling butthurt?
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
Sucrose is broken down into its fructose and glucose components by stomach acid. (And possibly also by the acidity of Coke itself ?)
Not what I was taught. You need enzymes. A little happens in the mouth but most in the small intestine.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Still, he hasn't invaded Iraq yet.
Honestly, the reaction of the old Blairites to their not automatically being treated as founts of wisdom by the new govt is fairly hilarious. You'd think that, more than 20 years on from trashing their own legacies, they'd have made their peace with ending their days in irrelevance and ignominy, but clearly not all of them have got the message.
Does anyone know if it's just "gizza job" Mandelson behind these comments, or is it Blair himself who's feeling butthurt?
To be fair to Blair, his 'institute' has some not ridiculous ideas for government. But he offers no much more coherent national plan than does Starmer.
And as you say, no acknowledgement of his own failures.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Still, he hasn't invaded Iraq yet.
Honestly, the reaction of the old Blairites to their not automatically being treated as founts of wisdom by the new govt is fairly hilarious. You'd think that, more than 20 years on from trashing their own legacies, they'd have made their peace with ending their days in irrelevance and ignominy, but clearly not all of them have got the message.
Does anyone know if it's just "gizza job" Mandelson behind these comments, or is it Blair himself who's feeling butthurt?
People may not like the message but they’re not exactly wrong. This is a govt relaunching after a meagre 5 months after all.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Still, he hasn't invaded Iraq yet.
Honestly, the reaction of the old Blairites to their not automatically being treated as founts of wisdom by the new govt is fairly hilarious. You'd think that, more than 20 years on from trashing their own legacies, they'd have made their peace with ending their days in irrelevance and ignominy, but clearly not all of them have got the message.
Does anyone know if it's just "gizza job" Mandelson behind these comments, or is it Blair himself who's feeling butthurt?
I suspect they're both bright enough to know that mithering to the press like that has no upside and considerable downside.
It's a very human thing to do- see most retired sportsmen who go on to do commentary in their twilight years.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Still, he hasn't invaded Iraq yet.
Honestly, the reaction of the old Blairites to their not automatically being treated as founts of wisdom by the new govt is fairly hilarious. You'd think that, more than 20 years on from trashing their own legacies, they'd have made their peace with ending their days in irrelevance and ignominy, but clearly not all of them have got the message.
Does anyone know if it's just "gizza job" Mandelson behind these comments, or is it Blair himself who's feeling butthurt?
To be fair to Blair, his 'institute' has some not ridiculous ideas for government. But he offers no much more coherent national plan than does Starmer.
And as you say, no acknowledgement of
his own failures.
What plans does Blair have?Who does he want to invade now?
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
Sucrose is broken down into its fructose and glucose components by stomach acid. (And possibly also by the acidity of Coke itself ?)
Not what I was taught. You need enzymes. A little happens in the mouth but most in the small intestine.
So the two products are digested differently.
Are they used for the cola zero as artificial sweetener or the ‘full fat’ version.
More nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration.
Donald Trump just announced that Massad Boulos , a Lebanese-born businessman and Tiffany Trump’s father-in-law will be appointed as a senior advisor for the Middle East:
“He has been a longtime proponent of Republican and Conservative values, an asset to my Campaign,” says Trump.
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
How does what I've posted indicate a misapprehension on my part? I haven't stated anything about either substance.
I think there's an assumption you'd have been wrong.
Lazy assumptions of that sort tend to make the assumer look like a prat. Sorry, more of a prat.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
More nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration.
Donald Trump just announced that Massad Boulos , a Lebanese-born businessman and Tiffany Trump’s father-in-law will be appointed as a senior advisor for the Middle East:
“He has been a longtime proponent of Republican and Conservative values, an asset to my Campaign,” says Trump.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Still, he hasn't invaded Iraq yet.
He's probably rich enough to fund a private army these days....
More nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration.
Donald Trump just announced that Massad Boulos , a Lebanese-born businessman and Tiffany Trump’s father-in-law will be appointed as a senior advisor for the Middle East:
“He has been a longtime proponent of Republican and Conservative values, an asset to my Campaign,” says Trump.
Say "Republicans against Trump"? I'm sure the Bushes and the Cheneys find the idea of appointing a family member incomprehensible.
Well to be fair, the voters appointed Cheney and Bush Junior, not their fathers. Or indeed fathers in law.
Once again, it seems that Trump intends to preside over an administration that is even more blackguardly unscrupulous and disreputable than Warren Harding´s teapot dome cronies.
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
More nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration.
Donald Trump just announced that Massad Boulos , a Lebanese-born businessman and Tiffany Trump’s father-in-law will be appointed as a senior advisor for the Middle East:
“He has been a longtime proponent of Republican and Conservative values, an asset to my Campaign,” says Trump.
Say "Republicans against Trump"? I'm sure the Bushes and the Cheneys find the idea of appointing a family member incomprehensible.
Well to be fair, the voters appointed Cheney and Bush Junior, not their fathers. Or indeed fathers in law.
Once again, it seems that Trump intends to preside over an administration that is even more blackguardly unscrupulous and disreputable than Warren Harding´s teapot dome cronies.
That’s a disgraceful comparison. Warren Harding appointed a number of excellent subordinates (Hoover etc) got on well with nearly everyone and every nation, negotiated the Naval Treaty that engaged the whole world in cooperation and ended the rather bizarre persecution of anti-war (WWI) activists.
The corruption under his administration was rather conventional, as compared with tearing up democracy..
"Someone close to Tony Blair says that Keir Starmer’s problem, apart from the fact that his ministers and aides are not very good, is that they are “a bunch of librarians and academics in charge of a government”."
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
Team Starmer have the same thin skin as Team Boris. Andrew Neil reports after describing the labour front team as second rate they have boycotted his Times Radio show in a fit of pique in the same was Boris boycotted Piers Morgan on GMB,
We'll done Team Starmer.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
Sucrose is broken down into its fructose and glucose components by stomach acid. (And possibly also by the acidity of Coke itself ?)
Not what I was taught. You need enzymes. A little happens in the mouth but most in the small intestine.
So the two products are digested differently.
Are they used for the cola zero as artificial sweetener or the ‘full fat’ version.
No idea. They wouldn't be regarded as artificial sweetener, though, as they're just plain sugars per se.
What it doesn't do is note that this is the result of capitalism. Companies use modern techniques to maximise profits and, too often, care little about the consequences. The question is how do we balance the good parts of capitalism with these excesses. The programme does talk about possible government regulation around food, drawing inspiration from Latin American policies like clear labelling and taxes on ultraprocessed food. I'd like to see politicians make that case more widely.
Liverpool 11 points ahead of City, 9 ahead of the chasing pack.
To stop TSE being insufferable I will have to remind him of Forest winning at Anfield this season...
Someone here, Kinabalu IIRC is on Liverpool at 8/1 to win the league. As much as I don’t like Liverpool it would be nice to see him win that.
Yes, thank you. It's a bet I'm really proud of because my reasoning (the Klopp to Slot switch would help not hinder them) was a little bit out of the box.
Liverpool 11 points ahead of City, 9 ahead of the chasing pack.
To stop TSE being insufferable I will have to remind him of Forest winning at Anfield this season...
Someone here, Kinabalu IIRC is on Liverpool at 8/1 to win the league. As much as I don’t like Liverpool it would be nice to see him win that.
Yes, thank you. It's a bet I'm really proud of because my reasoning (the Klopp to Slot switch would help not hinder them) was a little bit out of the box.
Good luck and it looks inspired, but I am sure you are not taking it for granted
Note that the HFCS used in Coke is barely different in chemical terms from cane sugar extract. They're both around 50/50 fructose/glucose.
Coke (including the diet version, though that's nit quite as bad) is just bad for you, and will be just as bad after Kennedy's bit of nonsense.
The problem with HFCS is not that it's worse than cane sugar; it's that the US food industry put it in almost everything.
What information to you have about the relative merits of the biochemical make up of cane sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup? It's not something we've seen much posting from you on before.
I fear the two of you are under a misapprehension.
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
How does what I've posted indicate a misapprehension on my part? I haven't stated anything about either substance.
I think there's an assumption you'd have been wrong.
Lazy assumptions of that sort tend to make the assumer look like a prat. Sorry, more of a prat.
Prat? You're surely not meaning me there. No, it's fine, you can't be. All ok.
Liverpool 11 points ahead of City, 9 ahead of the chasing pack.
To stop TSE being insufferable I will have to remind him of Forest winning at Anfield this season...
Someone here, Kinabalu IIRC is on Liverpool at 8/1 to win the league. As much as I don’t like Liverpool it would be nice to see him win that.
Yes, thank you. It's a bet I'm really proud of because my reasoning (the Klopp to Slot switch would help not hinder them) was a little bit out of the box.
Good luck and it looks inspired, but I am sure you are not taking it for granted
Liverpool 11 points ahead of City, 9 ahead of the chasing pack.
To stop TSE being insufferable I will have to remind him of Forest winning at Anfield this season...
The slight but important difference for the chasing pack is that they are only hunting down one team. If one of them puts a run together only Liverpool have to falter.
This is materially different to sort of falling behind a United or a Chelsea or an Arsenal have often done at this stage in the last decade, where a tighter race at the top leaves them 10 points behind not one, but two, three or maybe even four teams and those teams ALL have to falter for the race to open up to the laggard.
We have seen a government with a majority of 80 fail to govern, and one with a majority of 160 get bogged down and have to relaunch after five months.
Are big majorities overrated?
In neither case was (or is) the problem the majority.
Both government could (and can) pass legislation easily. Coming up with a joined plan of implementable policies is a different thing.
For example - if Starmer went to the Commons with a plan to increase training places in the NHS, over the next decade, to 100% of planned requirements, he would get the votes of 100% of his MPs, probably without bothering to whip.
More nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration.
Donald Trump just announced that Massad Boulos , a Lebanese-born businessman and Tiffany Trump’s father-in-law will be appointed as a senior advisor for the Middle East:
“He has been a longtime proponent of Republican and Conservative values, an asset to my Campaign,” says Trump.
We have seen a government with a majority of 80 fail to govern, and one with a majority of 160 get bogged down and have to relaunch after five months.
Are big majorities overrated?
I think the biggest problem is the turnover of MPs. Half the government MPs have only been in for 4 months, and with the cull of 2015 and 2019 all parties have a shortage of veterans, and particularly a shortage of those with ministerial experience. It is very likely to be so again next GE.
Preparing for a war is the best way to stop a war from ever happening.
I'm very inclined to agree there, that yes we do need to rearm in significant measure.
I'd quite appreciate a header, comparing rearmament in the 1930s vs now, with costs and with respect to the economic background. I'll make this chart of Defence Expenditure from 1900 to present. It's a surprise how low it was right up to 1914, and ramping up in the 1930s was a little earlier - from around 1936.
But the numbers are deceptive due to the British Empire being dominant in the world economy in the early years (from WIki - 1870: 24%; 1913: 20%, USA: 9% and 19%), as the USA has been recently - whilst also being in relative decline.
I do think we need to be "correctly armed". Which, AFAICT means determining what we can possibly do independently (i.e. what we actually need to defend our own population; mainly anti-drone and missile tech), what we want to stockpile to support others on actual frontlines (artillery, air defence, medium range missile systems) and what forces we will need to act in concert with various permutations of allies to be able to put a coherent army into the field that is a serious deterrent to conventional attack of those allies.
In the current climate most of that hinges on what close cooperation we can develop with Poland, France, and the Scandinavian/Baltics countries.
The new government is gearing up for a new Strategic Defence Review process, which should give us a better basis for discussion.
The last one, published in March 2021 (after having been delayed for over a year by Brexit and the pandemic) was outdated almost from the start, and has been revised piecemeal since then to account for the changed threat environment with Russia and Iran coming to the fore and our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
I do think we need to be very sceptical about some of our current spending - are our aircraft carriers really worth it if we're worried primarily about Russia and their proxies? Would the £1bn or so that we pay each year just to keep them floating not be better spent on the likes of NCSA, or on turning the NPSA into a real agency rather than a slightly-pathetic front for the Security Service?
You surrender the carriers you end, in one fell swoop, any ability of ours to launch an expeditionary operation worldwide.
We have seen a government with a majority of 80 fail to govern, and one with a majority of 160 get bogged down and have to relaunch after five months.
Are big majorities overrated?
I suspect with Labour your average person would be hard-pressed to say what they'd actually done with it so far other than removing winter fuel allowance, and farmer's IHT.
You couldn't get two more different presenters of a show like Masterchef than Loyd Grossman and Greg Wallace. When they changed the format it was almost as if they wanted to make as big a change as possible in terms of presenters.
What it doesn't do is note that this is the result of capitalism. Companies use modern techniques to maximise profits and, too often, care little about the consequences. The question is how do we balance the good parts of capitalism with these excesses. The programme does talk about possible government regulation around food, drawing inspiration from Latin American policies like clear labelling and taxes on ultraprocessed food. I'd like to see politicians make that case more widely.
The rules about corporations effectively guarantee that they act like sociopaths, caring only about their own interests rather than wider society. It's a fundamental flaw in the system.
What it doesn't do is note that this is the result of capitalism. Companies use modern techniques to maximise profits and, too often, care little about the consequences. The question is how do we balance the good parts of capitalism with these excesses. The programme does talk about possible government regulation around food, drawing inspiration from Latin American policies like clear labelling and taxes on ultraprocessed food. I'd like to see politicians make that case more widely.
The rules about corporations effectively guarantee that they act like sociopaths, caring only about their own interests rather than wider society. It's a fundamental flaw in the system.
So. Here I go again - on my own. Basically going down the only road I’ve ever known
Occurs to me I’m like a drifter: born to walk alone
There's a voice, that keeps on calling me Down the road, that's where I'll always be Every stop I make, I make a new friend Can't stay for long, Just turn around and I'm gone again Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on
Comments
It's not really used in the UK, apart from in some low-volume imports, but Rishi clambered on board the anti-HFCS bandwagon when he went on about preferring Mexican Coke to those A-Level students a few years back (not sure why - Coke in the UK uses sugar beet).
The trend from the start of the election to polling day was labours vote share fell. That has continued since.
How does he turn it around from here ? Complaining about how the press report it, well that’s politics. It was no different when the Tories were in charge. It’s how things are and if they deliver rather than just worry about presentation then I expect things to come good for them. If not it’s over.
a straightforward lie...]
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/starmer-leadership-blairites-despair-b2656483.html
Cane sugar is pretty much all sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide - a fructose molecule joined to a glucose molecule.
HFCS is a mix of fructose and glucose in water. Actually, starch thta has been processed. Originally starch, hydrolysed to glucose which is partly converted to fructose, it seems.
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fructose-corn-syrup-questions-and-answers
Quite different, except insofar as various mono- and disaccharides tend to be water soluble, sticky and (if not toxic) quite calorific. The sucrose molecule, for one thing, is as it came out of tbe beetroot, albeit purified.
I referred to myself earlier as politically homeless, and I am forced to concede I don't know how politics works any more. I'm pretty sure that neoliberalism and the Sixth Party System has died, and I'm very sure I won't like what's coming next, but I don't know what it is. I suspect the answer will be found in gut instinct (one of the reasons why I biught up religion in the "Hell" article) and hindbrain stuff, instead of rationalisation. When you find out what is happening, let me know...
[1]: https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/the-death-of-deliverism/
Instead they’ve tried to raise some small change by annoying those singled out to contribute, and tried to raise some more by lumping extra tax on employers, which will simply come back to bite consumers through higher prices for this and that and that.
They should have realised they were destined to win the election anyway, given the abject failure of the Tories, and not boxed themselves in for a term with a bunch of idiotic promises.
Like Blair, they risk under performing during their first term, through timidity. Unlike Blair, a second term isn’t by any means guaranteed.
Or indeed, a leisure centre manager. We did try to warn you...
""The Brittas Empire" was an often bizarre journey through a world filled with disaster... Gordon Brittas, the well-intentioned but hugely incompetent manager..."
EDIT Now 1 - 0!
AFAICS that's a scratch on the surface of what is needed in extra revenue.
That would just about do an uptick in Defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, assuming we are starting from 2.1%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8dddpwd2o
Does a credible rape accusation normally result in an immediate license suspension? Suspect the details will be unusually serious.
(And possibly also by the acidity of Coke itself ?)
The alternative is to carry on borrowing until UK plc belongs to Karloans and Wonga Ltd following a CCJ.
Pick any one. I don't think others exist.
If someone refuses to engage in grown up politics, spreads lies and disinformation and always reports negatively there is a very simple solution.
Cut off their oxygen. Refuse to cooperate. I'm staggered any self respecting politician gives the like of GBNews / Times etc a second of their time.
Plenty of obsessive single-issue causes, from net zero to releasing criminals early to decolonising education to boosting public sector pay. But no experience in business or the armed forces, so no understanding of how to generate economic growth to pay for their fantasies or how to defend the country.
So we get what 20% of us, anyway, voted for in July - five years of depressing stagnation and increasingly fractious relative decline.
A plane crashes on the Ukraine/Republic of China border. Which side do you bury the survivors?
Does anyone know if it's just "gizza job" Mandelson behind these comments, or is it Blair himself who's feeling butthurt?
ChatGPT refuses to say the name “David Mayer,” and no one knows why.
If you try to get it to write the name, the chat immediately ends.
People have attempted all sorts of things - ciphers, riddles, tricks - and nothing works.
https://x.com/venturetwins/status/1862910201113739328
Competing for the Lettuce Cup ...
So the two products are digested differently.
But he offers no much more coherent national plan than does Starmer.
And as you say, no acknowledgement of his own failures.
It's a very human thing to do- see most retired sportsmen who go on to do commentary in their twilight years.
What plans does Blair have?Who does he want to invade now?
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5016398-president-elect-trump-appoints-massad-boulos/
Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
More nepotism and corruption in the Trump administration.
Donald Trump just announced that Massad Boulos , a Lebanese-born businessman and Tiffany Trump’s father-in-law will be appointed as a senior advisor for the Middle East:
“He has been a longtime proponent of Republican and Conservative values, an asset to my Campaign,” says Trump.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1863255682306212274
77 mins
Once again, it seems that Trump intends to preside over an administration that is even more blackguardly unscrupulous and disreputable than Warren Harding´s teapot dome cronies.
That at least is in the Bush tradition.
https://x.com/Telegraph/status/1863279248112283706
There is no such thing as offence, as the Telegraph reports day after day. So something clearly has gone wrong.
Liverpool 11 points ahead of City, 9 ahead of the chasing pack.
To stop TSE being insufferable I will have to remind him of Forest winning at Anfield this season...
The corruption under his administration was rather conventional, as compared with tearing up democracy..
More fact based in terms of the actual proposals, tax experts and viewpoints from Farmers for and against the proposals.
Steve Reed and Tom Bradshaw NFU also interviewed.
The Clarksons of this world will hate it but I'm sure the silent majority will be much better informed having seen it.
What it doesn't do is note that this is the result of capitalism. Companies use modern techniques to maximise profits and, too often, care little about the consequences. The question is how do we balance the good parts of capitalism with these excesses. The programme does talk about possible government regulation around food, drawing inspiration from Latin American policies like clear labelling and taxes on ultraprocessed food. I'd like to see politicians make that case more widely.
Are big majorities overrated?
This is materially different to sort of falling behind a United or a Chelsea or an Arsenal have often done at this stage in the last decade, where a tighter race at the top leaves them 10 points behind not one, but two, three or maybe even four teams and those teams ALL have to falter for the race to open up to the laggard.
Both government could (and can) pass legislation easily. Coming up with a joined plan of implementable policies is a different thing.
For example - if Starmer went to the Commons with a plan to increase training places in the NHS, over the next decade, to 100% of planned requirements, he would get the votes of 100% of his MPs, probably without bothering to whip.
The same Steve Reed who persuaded the Chancellor to give real Farmers a £5, 000,000,000 increase in funding over the next 2 years.
Watch the article you might learn something.
Occurs to me I’m like a drifter: born to walk alone
Down the road, that's where I'll always be
Every stop I make, I make a new friend
Can't stay for long, Just turn around
and I'm gone again
Maybe tomorrow, I'll want to settle down
Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on