Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Have you been to Latin America?
Is it much more common there? So not Western Christianity I guess.
The western Christian visigoths, Hispanics, a group which have been round the block a bit, especially to the Americas, are fond of Jesus as a given name.
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Does Farage really want Braverman? Yes it would be a coup, to some extent; but 1/6th of his parliamentary party would then be failed Tory politician who doesn’t stay on message and was Home Secretary when the immigration figures were so high.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
Ponsegromab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).
The pathway GDF-15 uses “has emerged as a main modulator of anorexia and body-weight regulation and is implicated in the pathogenesis of cachexia,” researchers wrote...
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Have you been to Latin America?
Is it much more common there? So not Western Christianity I guess.
The western Christian visigoths, Hispanics, a group which have been round the block a bit, especially to the Americas, are fond of Jesus as a given name.
Decarbonise the grid by 2030 is f*cking massive hostage to fortune frankly.
I guess though they can fudge it as the election will be in 2029.
Starmer can't win with some of you.
If he doesn't set targets, he's unambitious and has no plan.
If he does, he is creating "hostages to fortune".
There's ambitious and downright undeliverable.
I suppose it depends what "decarbonise" means in detail. But I'll eat my hat if we are not still burning gas in 2030 to keep the lights on.
Don't get me wrong - I very environmental and this needs doing, it is just how you do it and the steps to get there.
The problem is that there are many way to "meet" a simple target.
For example, if we shut down whole areas of industry, then no carbon emissions. Just import from China.
The plan is to decarbonise the grid, so that shouldn’t have a direct industry impact so long as prices are competitive - that’s the key thing where Ed needs to deliver on his cheap energy promise.
The chap I know who is running his family farm as a solar farm/small business park is getting some interesting comments from local councillors about his plan (after installing batteries to back the panels) to sell cheap leecy to the businesses in his old farm buildings.
Apparently, undercutting the grid prices is not nice or something. Greens worried that he is encouraging electricity consumption.
I suppose that makes a change from Greens deciding the solar farm is actually about Palestine.
It is the next battle - and one that may well come in this parliament. If prices of solar plus batteries continue to drop, any fool with a bit of land will be able to create leecy. Cheaply and with very little maintenance costs.
Remember "Too cheap to meter", for nuclear power? Well, this one will almost certainly deliver. And you might well see contracts on the lines of "All the available power from this farm, up to capacity", for a fixed price.
At this point, the Hair Shirt Declinists will get involved. Their vision of the future doesn't include a renaissance in aluminium smelting etc. They are proud of declining electricity usage.
They are tw@ts who should be instructed to desist, in uncompromising terms.
It's partly about instincts and partly about those who want a Scarcity Society. With *them* in charge of the rationing.
Energy use correlates (though not 1:1) with economic growth. Energy produced a zero marginal cost (which is true of solar, at a first approximation) represents a huge economic boon.
If idiots want to go round in hair shirts, let them. In return, they can stop interfering in our lives.
Energy price doesn't correlate with economic growth, though. While cheap solar energy will initially reduce the cost of electricty, consumption will inevitably rise in response and put a floor on energy prices. Consequently, fossil fuels will remain economical for a long time yet and, unless their use is restricted by some means, they will continue to be consumed to the detriment of the environment. That's why technology isn't the golden bullet everyone seems to think it is.
Perhaps. But when there is cheap and plentiful non fossil fuel energy available it becomes politically and economically much easier to restrict fossil fuel use without anyone noticing much.
There have been no marches demanding the return of coal power, but the government is too frightened of drivers to increase fuel duty. That has everything to do with their being alternatives to coal for electricity generation, and the alternatives to fossil fuel transport not yet available to most.
I forgot to mention the other day, the Talk TV host made what was potentially quite an astute remark in his interview with Tim Montgomery. He argued that whilst Musk probably does agree with Trump about a lot, what he had actually done was to spot an underlying trend, put all his chips on the 'Trump' square, and win big. The same is perhaps true of Reform. Musk senses a trend, and he is aligning himself with who he sees as Britain's future PM.
I forgot to mention the other day, the Talk TV host made what was potentially quite an astute remark in his interview with Tim Montgomery. He argued that whilst Musk probably does agree with Trump about a lot, what he had actually done was to spot an underlying trend, put all his chips on the 'Trump' square, and win big. The same is perhaps true of Reform. Musk senses a trend, and he is aligning himself with who he sees as Britain's future PM.
The interesting part of that statement is that Elon is a follower, not a leader.
The $44bn he spent getting Trump elected didn't actually change the result
How on earth do you know that? I suspect it did, and would be very confident it has switched at least the House.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
Decarbonise the grid by 2030 is f*cking massive hostage to fortune frankly.
I guess though they can fudge it as the election will be in 2029.
Starmer can't win with some of you.
If he doesn't set targets, he's unambitious and has no plan.
If he does, he is creating "hostages to fortune".
There's ambitious and downright undeliverable.
I suppose it depends what "decarbonise" means in detail. But I'll eat my hat if we are not still burning gas in 2030 to keep the lights on.
Don't get me wrong - I very environmental and this needs doing, it is just how you do it and the steps to get there.
The problem is that there are many way to "meet" a simple target.
For example, if we shut down whole areas of industry, then no carbon emissions. Just import from China.
The plan is to decarbonise the grid, so that shouldn’t have a direct industry impact so long as prices are competitive - that’s the key thing where Ed needs to deliver on his cheap energy promise.
The chap I know who is running his family farm as a solar farm/small business park is getting some interesting comments from local councillors about his plan (after installing batteries to back the panels) to sell cheap leecy to the businesses in his old farm buildings.
Apparently, undercutting the grid prices is not nice or something. Greens worried that he is encouraging electricity consumption.
I suppose that makes a change from Greens deciding the solar farm is actually about Palestine.
It is the next battle - and one that may well come in this parliament. If prices of solar plus batteries continue to drop, any fool with a bit of land will be able to create leecy. Cheaply and with very little maintenance costs.
Remember "Too cheap to meter", for nuclear power? Well, this one will almost certainly deliver. And you might well see contracts on the lines of "All the available power from this farm, up to capacity", for a fixed price.
At this point, the Hair Shirt Declinists will get involved. Their vision of the future doesn't include a renaissance in aluminium smelting etc. They are proud of declining electricity usage.
They are tw@ts who should be instructed to desist, in uncompromising terms.
It's partly about instincts and partly about those who want a Scarcity Society. With *them* in charge of the rationing.
Energy use correlates (though not 1:1) with economic growth. Energy produced a zero marginal cost (which is true of solar, at a first approximation) represents a huge economic boon.
If idiots want to go round in hair shirts, let them. In return, they can stop interfering in our lives.
Energy price doesn't correlate with economic growth, though. While cheap solar energy will initially reduce the cost of electricty, consumption will inevitably rise in response and put a floor on energy prices. Consequently, fossil fuels will remain economical for a long time yet and, unless their use is restricted by some means, they will continue to be consumed to the detriment of the environment. That's why technology isn't the golden bullet everyone seems to think it is.
Wrong.
Energy prices have been strongly correlated with economic growth since before I was born. Every time the price of oil hiccuped etc.
Prices will fall to cost + profit, unless supply is artificially constrained.
Hence OPEC.
Without constraints on solar (no OPEC for them) we will simply get more and more. It is far cheaper and faster to install a solar farm than it is to build a factory.
It is perfectly possible to envisage a future in which we have excess solar power, looking for buyers.
In the US, coal is already the most expensive option for electricity. Oil is barely used for generation. Gas is popular now. But, when solar + battery drops below the cost of gas (which it will), what will stop the gas power stations shutting down?
There is good evidence that such supply will have costs lower than the current prices, by a long way. Will the government allow prices to fall like that?
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
None of you have bothered to look at the publicly available data.
Decarbonise the grid by 2030 is f*cking massive hostage to fortune frankly.
I guess though they can fudge it as the election will be in 2029.
Starmer can't win with some of you.
If he doesn't set targets, he's unambitious and has no plan.
If he does, he is creating "hostages to fortune".
There's ambitious and downright undeliverable.
I suppose it depends what "decarbonise" means in detail. But I'll eat my hat if we are not still burning gas in 2030 to keep the lights on.
Don't get me wrong - I very environmental and this needs doing, it is just how you do it and the steps to get there.
The problem is that there are many way to "meet" a simple target.
For example, if we shut down whole areas of industry, then no carbon emissions. Just import from China.
The plan is to decarbonise the grid, so that shouldn’t have a direct industry impact so long as prices are competitive - that’s the key thing where Ed needs to deliver on his cheap energy promise.
The chap I know who is running his family farm as a solar farm/small business park is getting some interesting comments from local councillors about his plan (after installing batteries to back the panels) to sell cheap leecy to the businesses in his old farm buildings.
Apparently, undercutting the grid prices is not nice or something. Greens worried that he is encouraging electricity consumption.
I suppose that makes a change from Greens deciding the solar farm is actually about Palestine.
It is the next battle - and one that may well come in this parliament. If prices of solar plus batteries continue to drop, any fool with a bit of land will be able to create leecy. Cheaply and with very little maintenance costs.
Remember "Too cheap to meter", for nuclear power? Well, this one will almost certainly deliver. And you might well see contracts on the lines of "All the available power from this farm, up to capacity", for a fixed price.
At this point, the Hair Shirt Declinists will get involved. Their vision of the future doesn't include a renaissance in aluminium smelting etc. They are proud of declining electricity usage.
They are tw@ts who should be instructed to desist, in uncompromising terms.
It's partly about instincts and partly about those who want a Scarcity Society. With *them* in charge of the rationing.
Energy use correlates (though not 1:1) with economic growth. Energy produced a zero marginal cost (which is true of solar, at a first approximation) represents a huge economic boon.
If idiots want to go round in hair shirts, let them. In return, they can stop interfering in our lives.
Energy price doesn't correlate with economic growth, though. While cheap solar energy will initially reduce the cost of electricty, consumption will inevitably rise in response and put a floor on energy prices. Consequently, fossil fuels will remain economical for a long time yet and, unless their use is restricted by some means, they will continue to be consumed to the detriment of the environment. That's why technology isn't the golden bullet everyone seems to think it is.
Wrong.
Energy prices have been strongly correlated with economic growth since before I was born. Every time the price of oil hiccuped etc.
Prices will fall to cost + profit, unless supply is artificially constrained.
Hence OPEC.
Without constraints on solar (no OPEC for them) we will simply get more and more. It is far cheaper and faster to install a solar farm than it is to build a factory.
It is perfectly possible to envisage a future in which we have excess solar power, looking for buyers.
In the US, coal is already the most expensive option for electricity. Oil is barely used for generation. Gas is popular now. But, when solar + battery drops below the cost of gas (which it will), what will stop the gas power stations shutting down?
There is good evidence that such supply will have costs lower than the current prices, by a long way. Will the government allow prices to fall like that?
Yes, there are short-term correlations associated with supply glitches. But, in the long term, energy price doesn't correlate at all with economic economic output because demand for energy always rises when its price falls. If there are large consumers of electricity (e.g. AI, EVs) that are economical to run at a certain energy price, then they will tend to hold energy at that price.
Edit: Your analysis completely ignores the demand side of the equation. Demand, like supply, is a function of price.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Olivia would come 8th in the boys names list, because generally people are more imaginative when it comes to girls names, but stick to safer names for boys.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
Yes, I believe that to be the case.
Thought it must be. However I guess there are more variations on a name like Muhammed than a name like John.
There must, now I come to think of it, be edge cases on this principle. Eg Thomas is grouped with Tom, that's clear, but what about Thom as in Thom Yorke of Radiohead?
Edit: Just googled that. His birth name is actually Thomas.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
Decarbonise the grid by 2030 is f*cking massive hostage to fortune frankly.
I guess though they can fudge it as the election will be in 2029.
Starmer can't win with some of you.
If he doesn't set targets, he's unambitious and has no plan.
If he does, he is creating "hostages to fortune".
There's ambitious and downright undeliverable.
I suppose it depends what "decarbonise" means in detail. But I'll eat my hat if we are not still burning gas in 2030 to keep the lights on.
Don't get me wrong - I very environmental and this needs doing, it is just how you do it and the steps to get there.
The problem is that there are many way to "meet" a simple target.
For example, if we shut down whole areas of industry, then no carbon emissions. Just import from China.
The plan is to decarbonise the grid, so that shouldn’t have a direct industry impact so long as prices are competitive - that’s the key thing where Ed needs to deliver on his cheap energy promise.
The chap I know who is running his family farm as a solar farm/small business park is getting some interesting comments from local councillors about his plan (after installing batteries to back the panels) to sell cheap leecy to the businesses in his old farm buildings.
Apparently, undercutting the grid prices is not nice or something. Greens worried that he is encouraging electricity consumption.
I suppose that makes a change from Greens deciding the solar farm is actually about Palestine.
It is the next battle - and one that may well come in this parliament. If prices of solar plus batteries continue to drop, any fool with a bit of land will be able to create leecy. Cheaply and with very little maintenance costs.
Remember "Too cheap to meter", for nuclear power? Well, this one will almost certainly deliver. And you might well see contracts on the lines of "All the available power from this farm, up to capacity", for a fixed price.
At this point, the Hair Shirt Declinists will get involved. Their vision of the future doesn't include a renaissance in aluminium smelting etc. They are proud of declining electricity usage.
They are tw@ts who should be instructed to desist, in uncompromising terms.
It's partly about instincts and partly about those who want a Scarcity Society. With *them* in charge of the rationing.
Energy use correlates (though not 1:1) with economic growth. Energy produced a zero marginal cost (which is true of solar, at a first approximation) represents a huge economic boon.
If idiots want to go round in hair shirts, let them. In return, they can stop interfering in our lives.
Energy price doesn't correlate with economic growth, though. While cheap solar energy will initially reduce the cost of electricty, consumption will inevitably rise in response and put a floor on energy prices. Consequently, fossil fuels will remain economical for a long time yet and, unless their use is restricted by some means, they will continue to be consumed to the detriment of the environment. That's why technology isn't the golden bullet everyone seems to think it is.
Wrong.
Energy prices have been strongly correlated with economic growth since before I was born. Every time the price of oil hiccuped etc.
Prices will fall to cost + profit, unless supply is artificially constrained.
Hence OPEC.
Without constraints on solar (no OPEC for them) we will simply get more and more. It is far cheaper and faster to install a solar farm than it is to build a factory.
It is perfectly possible to envisage a future in which we have excess solar power, looking for buyers.
In the US, coal is already the most expensive option for electricity. Oil is barely used for generation. Gas is popular now. But, when solar + battery drops below the cost of gas (which it will), what will stop the gas power stations shutting down?
There is good evidence that such supply will have costs lower than the current prices, by a long way. Will the government allow prices to fall like that?
Yes, there are short-term correlations associated with supply glitches. But, in the long term, energy price doesn't correlate at all with economic economic output because demand for energy always rises when its price falls. If there are large consumers of electricity (e.g. AI, EVs) that are economical to run at a certain energy price, then they will tend to hold energy at that price.
Edit: Your analysis completely ignores the demand side of the equation. Demand, like supply, is a function of price.
What happens when supply is *less constrained* than demand?
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
None of you have bothered to look at the publicly available data.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Can a GP stop someone from driving? Do they have that authority in law? Certainly they can advise someone that they're not fit to do so but you can only instruct someone to stop if there are consequences to not so doing, which presumably would mean written communication with, at least, the patient but also, probably, the DVLA.
I'd guess there's a distinction here between a formal medical assessment arranged for the purpose of determining if someone is fit to drive, and an ad hoc response to a question in a surgery, or a comment after a checkover.
Primary responsibility has to lie with the individual themself, as with ensuring that they're fit to drive in other ways and I'd be wary of requiring GPs to mandate people to stop driving - and then be held accountable on those decisions, which may often only come on the basis of a short appointment, where the requirement would change the doctor-patient relationship, and where it might also change what the GP says.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
In fairness, Mohammed is not a 'name' as such – as many/most Muslim guys have that as a first name, but use their middle name. I have a mate for whom this caused significant issues with the Passport Office (he long ago renounced his religion yet continues to be Mohammed officially)
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
None of you have bothered to look at the publicly available data.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
In fairness, Mohammed is not a 'name' as such – as many/most Muslim guys have that as a first name, but use their middle name. I have a mate for whom this caused significant issues with the Passport Office (he long ago renounced his religion yet continues to be Mohammed officially)
Lack of name ambition is a Welsh thing too. At Llanelli Grammar school my father shared his name with about a third of his class. David ***** was so ubiquitous that they were all known by their middle names. He was always known as Graham thereafter.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Decarbonise the grid by 2030 is f*cking massive hostage to fortune frankly.
I guess though they can fudge it as the election will be in 2029.
Starmer can't win with some of you.
If he doesn't set targets, he's unambitious and has no plan.
If he does, he is creating "hostages to fortune".
There's ambitious and downright undeliverable.
I suppose it depends what "decarbonise" means in detail. But I'll eat my hat if we are not still burning gas in 2030 to keep the lights on.
Don't get me wrong - I very environmental and this needs doing, it is just how you do it and the steps to get there.
The problem is that there are many way to "meet" a simple target.
For example, if we shut down whole areas of industry, then no carbon emissions. Just import from China.
The plan is to decarbonise the grid, so that shouldn’t have a direct industry impact so long as prices are competitive - that’s the key thing where Ed needs to deliver on his cheap energy promise.
The chap I know who is running his family farm as a solar farm/small business park is getting some interesting comments from local councillors about his plan (after installing batteries to back the panels) to sell cheap leecy to the businesses in his old farm buildings.
Apparently, undercutting the grid prices is not nice or something. Greens worried that he is encouraging electricity consumption.
I suppose that makes a change from Greens deciding the solar farm is actually about Palestine.
It is the next battle - and one that may well come in this parliament. If prices of solar plus batteries continue to drop, any fool with a bit of land will be able to create leecy. Cheaply and with very little maintenance costs.
Remember "Too cheap to meter", for nuclear power? Well, this one will almost certainly deliver. And you might well see contracts on the lines of "All the available power from this farm, up to capacity", for a fixed price.
At this point, the Hair Shirt Declinists will get involved. Their vision of the future doesn't include a renaissance in aluminium smelting etc. They are proud of declining electricity usage.
They are tw@ts who should be instructed to desist, in uncompromising terms.
It's partly about instincts and partly about those who want a Scarcity Society. With *them* in charge of the rationing.
Energy use correlates (though not 1:1) with economic growth. Energy produced a zero marginal cost (which is true of solar, at a first approximation) represents a huge economic boon.
If idiots want to go round in hair shirts, let them. In return, they can stop interfering in our lives.
Energy price doesn't correlate with economic growth, though. While cheap solar energy will initially reduce the cost of electricty, consumption will inevitably rise in response and put a floor on energy prices. Consequently, fossil fuels will remain economical for a long time yet and, unless their use is restricted by some means, they will continue to be consumed to the detriment of the environment. That's why technology isn't the golden bullet everyone seems to think it is.
Wrong.
Energy prices have been strongly correlated with economic growth since before I was born. Every time the price of oil hiccuped etc.
Prices will fall to cost + profit, unless supply is artificially constrained.
Hence OPEC.
Without constraints on solar (no OPEC for them) we will simply get more and more. It is far cheaper and faster to install a solar farm than it is to build a factory.
It is perfectly possible to envisage a future in which we have excess solar power, looking for buyers.
In the US, coal is already the most expensive option for electricity. Oil is barely used for generation. Gas is popular now. But, when solar + battery drops below the cost of gas (which it will), what will stop the gas power stations shutting down?
There is good evidence that such supply will have costs lower than the current prices, by a long way. Will the government allow prices to fall like that?
Yes, there are short-term correlations associated with supply glitches. But, in the long term, energy price doesn't correlate at all with economic economic output because demand for energy always rises when its price falls. If there are large consumers of electricity (e.g. AI, EVs) that are economical to run at a certain energy price, then they will tend to hold energy at that price.
Edit: Your analysis completely ignores the demand side of the equation. Demand, like supply, is a function of price.
What happens when supply is *less constrained* than demand?
That is new territory.
Three aspects to the new territory.
One is how cheap solar is.
Another is the shape of the costs over time- once you have paid to set the system up, it carries on working at fairly minimal cost.
The really interesting one is that there's no point in turning the tap off once it's in place. You can leave the coal, oil or gas in the ground or in storage until tomorrow, but once a given sunray has gone, it's gone.
Interesting (I hope in a good way) to see what happens.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
In fairness, Mohammed is not a 'name' as such – as many/most Muslim guys have that as a first name, but use their middle name. I have a mate for whom this caused significant issues with the Passport Office (he long ago renounced his religion yet continues to be Mohammed officially)
Lack of name ambition is a Welsh thing too. At Llanelli Grammar school my father shared his name with about a third of his class. David ***** was so ubiquitous that they were all known by their middle names. He was always known as Graham thereafter.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
PR with closed lists would give parties much more control and reduce democratic accountability.
STV is very different. It would give voters much more power than FPTP where party HQ chooses candidates. Quite a lot of Independent TDs in Ireland used to be in a party, left for one reason or another, and the voters kept them in. Much easier for that to happen with STV than FPTP - albeit the last election was the best for Independents in Britain for a long time.
Though 16 Independents out of 174 TDs in Ireland (9.2%) is exactly an order of magnitude greater than the 6 Independents out of 650 MPs in Britain (0.92%).
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Your eternal reminder that the reason that Mohammed is so popular as a boys name is not Hordes Of Muslamics, but is caused by a lack of imagination. So you get a spike in a huge sea of names.
Also the various ways of Spelling the name too all count as one.
Isn't that the case with other names too? Eg John and Jon would be coupled?
None of you have bothered to look at the publicly available data.
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Can a GP stop someone from driving? Do they have that authority in law? Certainly they can advise someone that they're not fit to do so but you can only instruct someone to stop if there are consequences to not so doing, which presumably would mean written communication with, at least, the patient but also, probably, the DVLA.
I'd guess there's a distinction here between a formal medical assessment arranged for the purpose of determining if someone is fit to drive, and an ad hoc response to a question in a surgery, or a comment after a checkover.
Primary responsibility has to lie with the individual themself, as with ensuring that they're fit to drive in other ways and I'd be wary of requiring GPs to mandate people to stop driving - and then be held accountable on those decisions, which may often only come on the basis of a short appointment, where the requirement would change the doctor-patient relationship, and where it might also change what the GP says.
A friend, far from old, who had a health issue, had their Doctor inform DVLA that they should not be driving. The Dr said it would be easier if they surrendered their license because then the Dr wouldn't have to write to the DVLA. If there's no recurrence of the issue, Dr reckons should be fine to get license back in 6 months. It's not unusual for young or middle-aged people to have their license suspended for medical reasons, why are we so tolerant of the elderly?
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
My wife has two Aunts Mary, an Aunt Marie, an Aunt Theresa and an Aunt Teresa.
Teresa may be confused with Theresa.
One of my bosses in the 90s was a woman called Therese. Everyone referred to her as T(h)eresa. Whenever anyone made the error she corrected by suggesting "my name is Therese, as in to raise the Titanic".
Good morning everyone, And thanks for the header, @Teasy.
On my feed this morning, an unusual case where a very short-sighted elderly driver, who could only read a number plate at 3m rather than 20m received a short prison sentence for killing someone with their motor vehicle. Normally it would just be a revocation is licence and not prosecuted.
82 year old drove straight into a 70 year old man riding a cycle from behind, whilst going in the same direction.
I think we're going to see some change on these regulations in the next year or two, alongside something on graduated driving licences for young drivers, since under 24 (for men especially) and over ~75 are the ages are where KSI rates skyrocket, as part of the current road safety review.
The male/female disparity at each end of the age spectrum is quite striking. The danger of young male drivers is pretty well know - but over 75 women ?
There are two elderly [89 and 91] women neighbours driving their cars and both have dementia and should not be driving
All the neighbours are concerned as they both live alone with absent families and in one case carer's call 3 times a day
I have spoken to the son of one of the neighbours twice on his occasional visits to his mother and he agrees that she should not be driving but her doctor has not told her she must not drive but would prefer if she didn't
I do not know how you can enforce a driving ban on those who simply refuse to consider it but something is urgently needed , probably by stricter enforcement by the GPs
I have my eyes tested every year and was told my eyesight is good for my age and I have no reasons not to drive other than to wear my glasses to drive
I informed the DVLA of this, together with my pacemaker, and my aneurysm which is not considered a problem as it is small and reviewed annually, additionally my insurers are also aware of my medical conditions
Elderly drivers should have annual health checks and of course over 70s have to renew their licence every 3 years
My wife is awaiting cataracts operation on the Wales NHS [ waiting list upto 18 months] and her driving licence has been suspended by the DVLA pending the operation but then she is not keen to drive anyway so not too much of an issue
This is sad and very worrying. I must admit I am in a similar position myself with a loved one in my own family (I won't go into more details).
Is there any way I can get the authorities to stop an elderly person driving who clearly should not be on the roads? They are a palpably a danger to themselves and others (they are also poorly sighted and in ill mental health). The doctors seem uninterested/powerless.
Any advice gratefully received.
As you can see from my post that is the position with the two pensioners I mentioned and the neighbours are so frustrated because the GP will only recommend they do not drive
Maybe @Foxy would know more but it must be the GP who tells the patient and the DVLA to withdraw the licence
However, even that may not be effective if the pensioner drives anyway
It would be interesting what the insurer would think in the event of an accident when the GP recommendation is not to drive but not mandated
I would have no qualms.
In the 1990s one of my employees died of sclerosis of the liver after he had been on sick leave for several months. After his death one of my other drivers said "you do know the bottle of Lucozade he carried on the vehicle was really cooking sherry?" I asked why he hadn't told me, the response was that I would have sacked him, which was correct. I suggested whether he would have been comfortable with him driving pissed behind their wife and kids. The same applies to your case. Would you be happy for these older dangerous drivers to share the road with your wife, children and grandchildren?
None of the neighbours are happy about the situation and have been pro active in attempting to deal with it, but if the GP will not stop her driving then how do you think the DVLA will
This is a very real issue with no easy answers
Can a GP stop someone from driving? Do they have that authority in law? Certainly they can advise someone that they're not fit to do so but you can only instruct someone to stop if there are consequences to not so doing, which presumably would mean written communication with, at least, the patient but also, probably, the DVLA.
I'd guess there's a distinction here between a formal medical assessment arranged for the purpose of determining if someone is fit to drive, and an ad hoc response to a question in a surgery, or a comment after a checkover.
Primary responsibility has to lie with the individual themself, as with ensuring that they're fit to drive in other ways and I'd be wary of requiring GPs to mandate people to stop driving - and then be held accountable on those decisions, which may often only come on the basis of a short appointment, where the requirement would change the doctor-patient relationship, and where it might also change what the GP says.
A friend, far from old, who had a health issue, had their Doctor inform DVLA that they should not be driving. The Doc said it would be easier if they surrendered their license because they wouldn't have to write to the DVLA. If there's no recurrence of the issue, Dr reckons should be fine to get license back in 6 months. It's not unusual for young or middle-aged people to have their license suspended for medical reasons, why are we so tolerant of the elderly?
GP can notify DVLA if they believe someone should not be driving.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Today, Kash Patel sent a letter to my counsel @MarkSZaidEsq threatening legal action & demanding that I retract my comments on MSNBC about his unfitness to serve as FBI Director. This aligns with his threats against the media & political opponents, revealing how he might conduct himself if confirmed in the role. I stand by my statements—my priority remains the safety & security of the American people. I am not the only one who has expressed concerns about him. So why me? And so it begins. https://x.com/OliviaTroye/status/1864379358246207944
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Managed decline vs chaotic freefall.
I do think the drag post GFC is underestimated. We propped things up for a while with lax monetary policy but that's been withdrawn now. Then the pandemic of course. It probably means we're in a low growth era.
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
And the idea that government decisions are binary choices is self evident nonsense.
Has Parris been asleep for the past 14 years? You might have made that argument in 2010, with no recent experience of coalitions and following a string of governments that mostly knew what they were about, even if you didn't agree with them. The best argument against FPTP is the governments it has produced since 2015.
As an aside, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post! E.g. in Exmouth and Exeter East the "winning" candidate polled just 28.7% of the vote, and other similarly low examples are available. In many other seats 40% is a losing score. If anything AV should be called First Past the Post as it requires a candidate to go past the post of 50%. FPTP needs to be called Most Popular Candidate - MPC - or something like that. (Or Least Unpopular?)
I have a bee in my bonnet about this, and it crops up from time to time, so thanks for joining my bandwagon. My view of FPTP is that the 'post' is not relevant to the constituency - for the reasons you state - but to the election as a whole: the post is at 325 MPs - i.e. enough for a majority.
In a single seat - or, for example, for the London mayoralty - it is not a FPTP election but a simple plurality vote.
We had quite a ding-dong about this last time I raised it (Bart, I think) so I will concede that other views are available.
Plurality is the word I was looking for, thank you. Yes I see FPTP makes sense if you're looking at 650 individual competitions. But I suppose that would apply just as equally for AV. Or STV, or any other system really, even if many of them by design make it unlikely that a single party will pass the post.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
My wife has two Aunts Mary, an Aunt Marie, an Aunt Theresa and an Aunt Teresa.
Teresa may be confused with Theresa.
One of my bosses in the 90s was a woman called Therese. Everyone referred to her as T(h)eresa. Whenever anyone made the error she corrected by suggesting "my name is Therese, as in to raise the Titanic".
Did you work in a place full of particularly stupid people who couldn’t differentiate between two different names?
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
And the idea that government decisions are binary choices is self evident nonsense.
Has Parris been asleep for the past 14 years? You might have made that argument in 2010, with no recent experience of coalitions and following a string of governments that mostly knew what they were about, even if you didn't agree with them. The best argument against FPTP is the governments it has produced since 2015.
As an aside, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post! E.g. in Exmouth and Exeter East the "winning" candidate polled just 28.7% of the vote, and other similarly low examples are available. In many other seats 40% is a losing score. If anything AV should be called First Past the Post as it requires a candidate to go past the post of 50%. FPTP needs to be called Most Popular Candidate - MPC - or something like that. (Or Least Unpopular?)
I have a bee in my bonnet about this, and it crops up from time to time, so thanks for joining my bandwagon. My view of FPTP is that the 'post' is not relevant to the constituency - for the reasons you state - but to the election as a whole: the post is at 325 MPs - i.e. enough for a majority.
In a single seat - or, for example, for the London mayoralty - it is not a FPTP election but a simple plurality vote.
We had quite a ding-dong about this last time I raised it (Bart, I think) so I will concede that other views are available.
Plurality is the word I was looking for, thank you. Yes I see FPTP makes sense if you're looking at 650 individual competitions. But I suppose that would apply just as equally for AV. Or STV, or any other system really, even if many of them by design make it unlikely that a single party will pass the post.
Isn't the academic term for the system Single Member Plurailty?
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
My wife has two Aunts Mary, an Aunt Marie, an Aunt Theresa and an Aunt Teresa.
Teresa may be confused with Theresa.
One of my bosses in the 90s was a woman called Therese. Everyone referred to her as T(h)eresa. Whenever anyone made the error she corrected by suggesting "my name is Therese, as in to raise the Titanic".
Did you work in a place full of particularly stupid people who couldn’t differentiate between two different names?
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Are the targets the right targets for the defined missions?
For example in health the mission appears to focus on community, tech, prevention.
The milestone is waiting lists.
I am struggling to see the direct connection.
If you deal with more cases early in the community, use technology to build effective communication and monitoring and reduce illness like diabities, obesity, lung diseases via prevention and education, then you reduce admissions in to A and E.
Therefore reduce the waiting lists at both ends of the pipeline.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
Partly fair but not entirely. It is the localness of the elections which I emphasise, and the importance of planning to come first in enough of them as the challenge to any potential governing party. To come first (or indeed +50%) in a nationally based poll is a different sort of exercise, requiring different skills. The FPTP single seat system binds people to representaive and to parliament in a distinct way, and is extremely ancient.
I do support AV as a much needed tweak, but a single seat based democracy rather than a national/regional votes based democracy delivers enough good things to be cautious about change. I don't expect to change any minds!
BTW, using this as a system for electing just one person to be POTUS combines the worst of multiple systems. Using it to elect 650n is fine with me.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
So it is about government...
If BAe bought Stoke with their pocket change, the same thing would happen.
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Managed decline vs chaotic freefall.
I do think the drag post GFC is underestimated. We propped things up for a while with lax monetary policy but that's been withdrawn now. Then the pandemic of course. It probably means we're in a low growth era.
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
There are a few massive technological changes in progress that are going to create masses of economic growth, and instead of encouraging the government to make sure that Britain takes advantage and removes the barriers to that growth in Britain, you'd happily sit on the sidelines and watch the rest of the world benefit. Why?
The world is quite depressing. Think I might stay in beautiful backwatery Mompos. I woke up to fervent birdsong, from church towers, this sunny morning
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
So it is about government...
If BAe bought Stoke with their pocket change, the same thing would happen.
Well, yes. But that is also, to an extent, about government, too.
And don't be so down on Stoke. It's not that bad a place.
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Managed decline vs chaotic freefall.
I do think the drag post GFC is underestimated. We propped things up for a while with lax monetary policy but that's been withdrawn now. Then the pandemic of course. It probably means we're in a low growth era.
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
There are a few massive technological changes in progress that are going to create masses of economic growth, and instead of encouraging the government to make sure that Britain takes advantage and removes the barriers to that growth in Britain, you'd happily sit on the sidelines and watch the rest of the world benefit. Why?
Because the attempt by the government to do that would probably make things worse. If the government had got into the ZEV business (which some wanted), we would be £50 billion into hydrogen powered cars. Which are still not there.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
My wife has two Aunts Mary, an Aunt Marie, an Aunt Theresa and an Aunt Teresa.
Teresa may be confused with Theresa.
One of my bosses in the 90s was a woman called Therese. Everyone referred to her as T(h)eresa. Whenever anyone made the error she corrected by suggesting "my name is Therese, as in to raise the Titanic".
Did you work in a place full of particularly stupid people who couldn’t differentiate between two different names?
The world is quite depressing. Think I might stay in beautiful backwatery Mompos. I woke up to fervent birdsong, from church towers, this sunny morning
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whether it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Managed decline vs chaotic freefall.
I do think the drag post GFC is underestimated. We propped things up for a while with lax monetary policy but that's been withdrawn now. Then the pandemic of course. It probably means we're in a low growth era.
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
That's rubbish, I'm afraid. There's a huge amount government could do to encourage growth. Just not this one, very probably.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
PR with closed lists would give parties much more control and reduce democratic accountability.
STV is very different. It would give voters much more power than FPTP where party HQ chooses candidates. Quite a lot of Independent TDs in Ireland used to be in a party, left for one reason or another, and the voters kept them in. Much easier for that to happen with STV than FPTP - albeit the last election was the best for Independents in Britain for a long time.
Though 16 Independents out of 174 TDs in Ireland (9.2%) is exactly an order of magnitude greater than the 6 Independents out of 650 MPs in Britain (0.92%).
Something to consider Richard.
But STV also weakens the link between the MPs and the constituencies because of the multi- member system. And of course STV is not PR in its operation even if it might increase proportionality in its results.
The important point for me is reducing the power of the party system. Hence the reason I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote.
It is no surprise to me that the best debate for many years was the Assudted Dying debate when whips had no authority and MPs were voting on what was best for their constituents not what was best for their party.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
So it is about government...
If BAe bought Stoke with their pocket change, the same thing would happen.
Well, yes. But that is also, to an extent, about government, too.
And don't be so down on Stoke. It's not that bad a place.
It's about big organisations that can't control costs.
My plan is to buy Stoke Space. Build their medium launcher. Then build a launch 10x bigger than Starship/Super heavy - 1000 tons to LEO. The launchpads will be in the centres of Slough, Bedford and Stoke. After the first launch at each site, there will be a lot of GCT to pay on the improvements to the localities...
"Too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline."
That sounds like PB's Luckyguy.
Me, I think "managed decline" is one of the most lazy and misunderstood terms on the block. It's tossed around as an insult signifying mediocrity and lack of ambition when in fact it's very hard to achieve and ought to be thought of as a stretch target.
Managed decline vs chaotic freefall.
I do think the drag post GFC is underestimated. We propped things up for a while with lax monetary policy but that's been withdrawn now. Then the pandemic of course. It probably means we're in a low growth era.
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
There are a few massive technological changes in progress that are going to create masses of economic growth, and instead of encouraging the government to make sure that Britain takes advantage and removes the barriers to that growth in Britain, you'd happily sit on the sidelines and watch the rest of the world benefit. Why?
Because the attempt by the government to do that would probably make things worse. If the government had got into the ZEV business (which some wanted), we would be £50 billion into hydrogen powered cars. Which are still not there.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whethet it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
Hello!
It failed at the planning stage. It was announced and the economy crashed. If that isn't a definition of failure I don't know what is.
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
My wife has two Aunts Mary, an Aunt Marie, an Aunt Theresa and an Aunt Teresa.
Teresa may be confused with Theresa.
One of my bosses in the 90s was a woman called Therese. Everyone referred to her as T(h)eresa. Whenever anyone made the error she corrected by suggesting "my name is Therese, as in to raise the Titanic".
Always guaranteed Therese a smile in the works local of a Friday.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
PR with closed lists would give parties much more control and reduce democratic accountability.
STV is very different. It would give voters much more power than FPTP where party HQ chooses candidates. Quite a lot of Independent TDs in Ireland used to be in a party, left for one reason or another, and the voters kept them in. Much easier for that to happen with STV than FPTP - albeit the last election was the best for Independents in Britain for a long time.
Though 16 Independents out of 174 TDs in Ireland (9.2%) is exactly an order of magnitude greater than the 6 Independents out of 650 MPs in Britain (0.92%).
Something to consider Richard.
But STV also weakens the link between the MPs and the constituencies because of the multi- member system. And of course STV is not PR in its operation even if it might increase proportionality in its results.
The important point for me is reducing the power of the party system. Hence the reason I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote.
It is no surprise to me that the best debate for many years was the Assudted Dying debate when whips had no authority and MPs were voting on what was best for their constituents not what was best for their party.
STV can make the link between MPs and the constituency stronger, if that's what voters want, because it gives voters the power to vote for what they want, rather than against what they fear.
Just look at Ireland.
You would struggle to find an election with a stronger link between representatives and their constituencies, or even small parts of their constituencies.
Matthew Parris is in decent form today defending FPTP in today's Speccie. He is right. (Government requires decisions between binary choices, so coalition isn't capable of producing a proper government programme).
Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Just the regurgitation of old prejudice.
And the idea that government decisions are binary choices is self evident nonsense.
Has Parris been asleep for the past 14 years? You might have made that argument in 2010, with no recent experience of coalitions and following a string of governments that mostly knew what they were about, even if you didn't agree with them. The best argument against FPTP is the governments it has produced since 2015.
As an aside, why is it called First Past the Post? There is no post! E.g. in Exmouth and Exeter East the "winning" candidate polled just 28.7% of the vote, and other similarly low examples are available. In many other seats 40% is a losing score. If anything AV should be called First Past the Post as it requires a candidate to go past the post of 50%. FPTP needs to be called Most Popular Candidate - MPC - or something like that. (Or Least Unpopular?)
I have a bee in my bonnet about this, and it crops up from time to time, so thanks for joining my bandwagon. My view of FPTP is that the 'post' is not relevant to the constituency - for the reasons you state - but to the election as a whole: the post is at 325 MPs - i.e. enough for a majority.
In a single seat - or, for example, for the London mayoralty - it is not a FPTP election but a simple plurality vote.
We had quite a ding-dong about this last time I raised it (Bart, I think) so I will concede that other views are available.
Plurality is the word I was looking for, thank you. Yes I see FPTP makes sense if you're looking at 650 individual competitions. But I suppose that would apply just as equally for AV. Or STV, or any other system really, even if many of them by design make it unlikely that a single party will pass the post.
Isn't the academic term for the system Single Member Plurailty?
Thank you (and somebody else earlier). The term is now lodged in my brain, although as an election geek I don't know why I didn't already know it.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
So it is about government...
If BAe bought Stoke with their pocket change, the same thing would happen.
Well, yes. But that is also, to an extent, about government, too.
And don't be so down on Stoke. It's not that bad a place.
That shooting in New York has a really odd detail.
The words "deny," "defend" and "depose" were discovered by detectives on the shell casings found at the scene where Thompson was killed, police sources told ABC News late Wednesday evening.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
Hello, Richard. Do you remember accusing me of lying twice last night? (This follows from a similar accusal a week ago). So that's three times in the space of a week you have accused me of lying when I have been accurate.
This post earlier, from @Nigelb should at least set you straight. Hope all is well with you and yours.
The reporting of #porridgegate has been atrocious. You expect it of the tabloids, but Radio 4 Today were at it saying porridge had been labelled unhealthy.
Quaker Rolled Oats - 1g of sugar per 100g
Quaker Golden Syrup Oats - 15g per 100g
The latter’s ads are banned, the first are not.
I don’t think the reporters are too stupid the know the difference, so it’s obviously a confected story for the sake of a cheap headline. A bit bloody pathetic really. https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1864297916883521973
Olivia remains the most popular baby name for girls. Mohammed (and derivations thereof) replaces Noah as the most popular baby name for boys.
Usually hidden by the different spellings though, isn't it? At least thats the great replacement theory version.
Incidentally why is Mohammed (etc) such a common name for Muslims? Jesus doesn't seem to be for Christians?
Peter, Paul and Mary?
Rod, Jane and Freddie ?
Leon, Rose and Sean?
Wasn't Rose one of Johann Hari's pseudonyms?
I know @Leon is a fiction writer, who's books are based on imagined or made up versions of reality, and is a bit of a whiskey priest, but choosing a name used by JH .... come on FFS !
The world is quite depressing. Think I might stay in beautiful backwatery Mompos. I woke up to fervent birdsong, from church towers, this sunny morning
Seen any large Spiders yet ?
No. Just the moonlight on the mighty Magdalena
Honestly, this place is MAGICAL. And so few tourists because it’s so remote
Also, the main square is lit up for Christmas.
At dusk and through the evening the old people - and some young - literally bring rocking chairs out into the plazas, and sidewalks, or down to the riverbank. And they sit there, on their rocking chairs, nattering. I had read this before but I thought it was hyperbole. But it’s not. How blissfully laid-back is that?
It has an air of delicious unreality. In Mompos you can see why Colombia birthed magical realism. No coincidence Garcia Marquez loved it here
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
So it is about government...
If BAe bought Stoke with their pocket change, the same thing would happen.
Well, yes. But that is also, to an extent, about government, too.
And don't be so down on Stoke. It's not that bad a place.
Stoke is not the most charming place I've ever been. Yet every time I've been there I've had a nice time. There's a post-modern zoo there called monkey world. They only have one species, but absolutely loads of them. It's strangely enjoyable.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
So it is about government...
If BAe bought Stoke with their pocket change, the same thing would happen.
Well, yes. But that is also, to an extent, about government, too.
And don't be so down on Stoke. It's not that bad a place.
Curious museum, with curved display cases because pottery kiln emulation [edit] because (then) modern architect. Or at least it did when I visited.
And there is a Spitfire for those who don't like china.
I am not sure the NI changes were wise, but tumbling Dyson's and Clarkson's inheritance tax avoidance game is fine by me.
Dyson creates wealth Reeves doesnt. Who should we listen to ?
Dyson creates wealth in... Malaysia.
Reeves destroys wealth in Britain
Christ on a bike. Do you have a selection of dumb posts that you can easily select to slag off Reeves.
My earlier post was not uncritical but all yours are a not a particularly imaginative version of "Reeves is shit".
Anyway I'm off to work. I can't spend all day with all you job seeker claimants.
"Reeves is shit" Im glad to see youre coming round to my point of view
You'd save everyone a lot of reading time if you just posted "Reeves is shit" every post. Your posts generally say nothing more, so that saves both you and us time.
The other advantage for him is that such a posting does not require punctuation, which he “can’t be arsed” to do. Trebles all round!
R E E V E S
Is there a Nobel Prize for economics? Surely some sort of recognition is due for Reeves' long career successfully at the helm of the likes of RBS and the Bank of England, navigating them through the torrid squalls of the credit crunch and Covid-19, then joining the Government in time to revive the British economy from its under-taxed, under-regulated doldrums.
One to ponder.
The Reeves is shit narrative is posted on here a hundred times a day. Ninety of them from @Alanbrooke. You may well all be correct. However, why were none of you alarmed when Hunt cut NI twice in an unfunded election bribe? Surely the most egregious dereliction of duty by a Chancellor for generations.
No.
As I have said until I am blue in the face, there is more to an economy than handing in your homework and it all theoretically 'adding up'. There is consumer confidence affecting shopping habits. There is business confidence affecting investment and employment. There is investor confidence affecting borrowing costs. There is the mobile nature of both businesses and wealthy individuals. You can say that Hunt could never have made his proposed cuts to the public sector and balanced his books but
a) You have no idea if that is true. Reeves has done nothing about the burgeoning cost of public sector salaries or pensions (quite the reverse) nor addressed crippling welfare costs, exemplified by 'sickness influencers' who tell their followers how to get the most sick pay, nor done anything about the costs of the immigration system - quite the reverse.
b) The economy was gradually returning to growth under the Tories before the current deatheaters got in. Lord knows I was not a fan of Hunt Sunak, they were treading water, but it is clear that growth would have been stronger under Hunt than it is now, having a significant affect on tax receipts and possibly the cost of borrowing, giving him more headroom.
Yes but you supported Kwarteng's budget. That makes you wholly unqualified to propose a growth strategy.
Bollocks. Kwarteng's budget was never implemented. If it had been implemented and had failed, your argument might have a leg.
It crashed and burned on take off. The markets crashed it. It failed at birth.
You can use whatever hackneyed metaphor you like, it makes no difference. It is impossible to judge it as a formula for growth without the measures being implemented.
No it can't. It's not up for debate. Believing that the minibudget would have been more beneficial to the economy than no minibudget is a theory totally untested by events, except events like companies leaving the UK because of the later CT hike, which don't really support your argument. You can make what you like of the hooha that surrounded it, but clearly you're not helping your argument.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
It failed. It wasn't me who said it failed it was the gilt markets that confirmed it was a disaster all whilst you, the Daily Mail, Farage and Allister Heath believed the mini- budget to be the best, most Conservative budget evah.
I'm sorry, you seem to be failing on very basic comprehension.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whether it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
That's a bit like complaining that the De Havilland 108 was never fully tested because it killed its test pilots first.
To be honest I am not sure why he even bothered with this conference
Clear objectives
Clear targets
Clear plans
Clearly you have absolutely nothing constructive or relevant to say.
The majority of the electorate will welcome clarity.
The majority of the electorate will feel free to make judgement on the progress.
Those who are so blinkered as to pass judgement before Labour even took office are those who were wetting their pants on here on the 3rd July trying to convince themselves that The Tories were going to win 300 seats.
There is nothing more pointless than a blinkered mind
Aren’t we facing a war with Elon Musk? Starmer seems to have no position on it.
What is his plan to close the missile gap so we can take out Musk’s satellites?
The difference between you and me is that you said that in jest and I would have said it seriously.
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
No system built by SpaceX to date has any anti-satellite capability.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That's actually as succinct an illustration of our economic/industrial problems as I've seen for a while.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
It's not about government. It's about entrenched organisations.
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
So it is about government...
If BAe bought Stoke with their pocket change, the same thing would happen.
Well, yes. But that is also, to an extent, about government, too.
And don't be so down on Stoke. It's not that bad a place.
Stoke is not the most charming place I've ever been. Yet every time I've been there I've had a nice time. There's a post-modern zoo there called monkey world. They only have one species, but absolutely loads of them. It's strangely enjoyable.
Smallest city in England to have two league football clubs.
True of course and it can produce results that are even less proportional than FPTP, however that only tends to happen if one side wins very big anyway, so probably isn't as much of an issue. Given a choice I would go for STV as being more proportional and overcomes the issues raised by FPTP proponents. I do however prefer AV to FPTP as being more representative in most cases even if not PR.
AV, a mild variant of FPTP, provides the only change needed, as it simply allows the voter to express their real preference without having to believe their vote is 100% wasted; and thereby gives a proper chance to newcomer parties who are prepared to dig in for the long term. And gives a realistic chance of stable government.
FPTP (as now or with AV) has great merits. As it stands now what needs to happen is a shift of perspective, which is falsified by overpolling.
Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats. 650 simultaneous local by-elections are individual contests in which you have to win the local seat, not just be part of a national mood. Out of 650 local elections a government is formed.
The most important fact about Labour is not the 34% national vote. It was their ability to come first in 411 local elections. The rules are the same for everyone, and it is good for national politics to bend to the local.
You simply describe the current system. "Our system is not based on national vote %s but on seats". We all know that. It isn't a justification for not changing it.
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
I want to vote for a local representative, not for a party. Legally and constitutionally that is what I do now and I do not wish that to change.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
PR with closed lists would give parties much more control and reduce democratic accountability.
STV is very different. It would give voters much more power than FPTP where party HQ chooses candidates. Quite a lot of Independent TDs in Ireland used to be in a party, left for one reason or another, and the voters kept them in. Much easier for that to happen with STV than FPTP - albeit the last election was the best for Independents in Britain for a long time.
Though 16 Independents out of 174 TDs in Ireland (9.2%) is exactly an order of magnitude greater than the 6 Independents out of 650 MPs in Britain (0.92%).
Something to consider Richard.
But STV also weakens the link between the MPs and the constituencies because of the multi- member system. And of course STV is not PR in its operation even if it might increase proportionality in its results.
The important point for me is reducing the power of the party system. Hence the reason I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote.
It is no surprise to me that the best debate for many years was the Assudted Dying debate when whips had no authority and MPs were voting on what was best for their constituents not what was best for their party.
STV can make the link between MPs and the constituency stronger, if that's what voters want, because it gives voters the power to vote for what they want, rather than against what they fear.
Just look at Ireland.
You would struggle to find an election with a stronger link between representatives and their constituencies, or even small parts of their constituencies.
Depends on whether you think a thrd choice transfer is someone you actually want. In a ranking system people will still be voting for the least worst options unless they choose to only vote for their first choice.
And as I said STV is not really proportional in terms of parties. Which is a good thing.
On baby names, every spelling is counted separately:
Rank, name, count 1 Muhammad 4,661 28 Mohammed 1,601 68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
Do you mean because the more conservative a Muslim is, the more likely he is to call his son Muhammad/Mohammed/Mohammad? If that's so, you'd have to show that the share of these names was increasing against the number of Muslims born as a whole. Which I'm not sure is the case - it's more that the number of Muslims as a share of the population is increasing. (It may also be that the most popular non-Mohammad names are less popular than was the case a generation ago.)
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.
Comments
What are our plans for taking out his (and any other) satellites? I know we have our own satellites, but we don't have independent lift and definitely no launch-on-demand. So right now Elon+Starship+Starlink could take out the UK network and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. Love him or hate him, we need to counter credible threats.
Positive trial of ponsegromab may signal ‘start of a revolution’ for cancer cachexia
https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20240930/positive-trial-of-ponsegromab-may-signal-start-of-a-revolution-for-cancer-cachexia
...“Patients feel like they’re failing because they’re not able to eat, which is compounded by caregivers watching their loved ones lose weight,” Roeland said. “This causes an immense amount of distress. Cachexia is a huge unmet need in up to 80% of people living with advanced cancers, most notably in lung and pancreatic cancer.”
Ponsegromab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15).
The pathway GDF-15 uses “has emerged as a main modulator of anorexia and body-weight regulation and is implicated in the pathogenesis of cachexia,” researchers wrote...
There have been no marches demanding the return of coal power, but the government is too frightened of drivers to increase fuel duty. That has everything to do with their being alternatives to coal for electricity generation, and the alternatives to fossil fuel transport not yet available to most.
Energy prices have been strongly correlated with economic growth since before I was born. Every time the price of oil hiccuped etc.
Prices will fall to cost + profit, unless supply is artificially constrained.
Hence OPEC.
Without constraints on solar (no OPEC for them) we will simply get more and more. It is far cheaper and faster to install a solar farm than it is to build a factory.
It is perfectly possible to envisage a future in which we have excess solar power, looking for buyers.
In the US, coal is already the most expensive option for electricity. Oil is barely used for generation. Gas is popular now. But, when solar + battery drops below the cost of gas (which it will), what will stop the gas power stations shutting down?
There is good evidence that such supply will have costs lower than the current prices, by a long way. Will the government allow prices to fall like that?
Social media in a nutshell.
I have a teacher friend in Birmingham who observed every boy in her classes for years had the first name Mohammed which led to confusion.
Edit: Your analysis completely ignores the demand side of the equation. Demand, like supply, is a function of price.
Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer said it would give him assurances if Hegseth pledged directly to members that he would not drink going forward.
“I would love that. That would help. It would help me a lot.”..
https://x.com/FarnoushAmiri/status/1864376344831828076
You boldly state "This is exactly as it should be in the UK with our particular constitutional history". That is not a convincing argument except to those who already agree with you.
(But Teddy Boy is from Edward.)
There must, now I come to think of it, be edge cases on this principle. Eg Thomas is grouped with Tom, that's clear, but what about Thom as in Thom Yorke of Radiohead?
Edit: Just googled that. His birth name is actually Thomas.
In addition, Starshield satellites are hidden among the rest of the constellation. So an attack on Starlink would be an attack on (probably) strategic assets of the US government. During the cold war, it was mutually agreed that an attack on military satellites was an unambiguous act of war, and hence not to be done.
The reason we don't have a launch capability is a combination of
1) Unique British Requirements leading the UK into the Black Arrow comedy
2) A lack of willingness to confront the instinctive reaction that such projects need to cost £10 billion and employ 100K people. During the 80s, BAe quoted numbers like this for a 2 stage expendable launcher.
Stoke Space are launching next year (might be 2026). With 125 employees. A fully reusable (eventually) rocket as well. Using total funding (so far) of about $175 million dollars = £138 million.
So for 1.5 Bat Tunnels, we could have a competitive, reusable, launch on demand system.
That is new territory.
I'd guess there's a distinction here between a formal medical assessment arranged for the purpose of determining if someone is fit to drive, and an ad hoc response to a question in a surgery, or a comment after a checkover.
Primary responsibility has to lie with the individual themself, as with ensuring that they're fit to drive in other ways and I'd be wary of requiring GPs to mandate people to stop driving - and then be held accountable on those decisions, which may often only come on the basis of a short appointment, where the requirement would change the doctor-patient relationship, and where it might also change what the GP says.
I would be happy with AV as that maintains that principle. I do not want any proportional system which places greater emphasis on parties as I believe that act counter to the best interests of both the individual and the country.
For me PR would reduce democratic accountability not increase it.
Long, long tail....
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-shot-chest-midtown-manhattan- masked-gunman-large/story?id=116446382
deny claims is a tactic used to increase profits
Probably "defend" and "depose" relates to the legal tactics then used to keep denying claims.
One is how cheap solar is.
Another is the shape of the costs over time- once you have paid to set the system up, it carries on working at fairly minimal cost.
The really interesting one is that there's no point in turning the tap off once it's in place. You can leave the coal, oil or gas in the ground or in storage until tomorrow, but once a given sunray has gone, it's gone.
Interesting (I hope in a good way) to see what happens.
I am not instinctually anti-government, but the last three or four decades bias me strongly in that direction.
STV is very different. It would give voters much more power than FPTP where party HQ chooses candidates. Quite a lot of Independent TDs in Ireland used to be in a party, left for one reason or another, and the voters kept them in. Much easier for that to happen with STV than FPTP - albeit the last election was the best for Independents in Britain for a long time.
Though 16 Independents out of 174 TDs in Ireland (9.2%) is exactly an order of magnitude greater than the 6 Independents out of 650 MPs in Britain (0.92%).
Something to consider Richard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/equestrian/articles/cy89n7343zdo
It's not unusual for young or middle-aged people to have their license suspended for medical reasons, why are we so tolerant of the elderly?
https://www.reddit.com/r/unusual_whales/comments/1h71pa5/the_words_deny_defend_and_depose_were_discovered/
OTOH, how many of us have a forename completely missing from the full list? Mine featured as recently as five years ago but has now disappeared.
Today, Kash Patel sent a letter to my counsel @MarkSZaidEsq threatening legal action & demanding that I retract my comments on MSNBC about his unfitness to serve as FBI Director. This aligns with his threats against the media & political opponents, revealing how he might conduct himself if confirmed in the role. I stand by my statements—my priority remains the safety & security of the American people. I am not the only one who has expressed concerns about him. So why me? And so it begins.
https://x.com/OliviaTroye/status/1864379358246207944
The government can help on the margin, which they should, but I'd rather they focussed more on other things. Being unrealistic about growth is harming political discourse imo.
https://x.com/clairlemon/status/1864503233798131957
Opposition politicians being disappeared in broad daylight.
https://x.com/JayinKyiv/status/1864360292395659337
It's about group think. "How things are done"
It's about "This is tricky - let's outsource it" - also you have 10 levels of sub contracting, each with a profit.
Elon Musk flipped the space world upside down, with a 2 stage LOX/Kero rocket. It could have been built, with a bit less performance, any time after 1960. Before it began to be reusable, it was already the cheapest rocket on the planet.
The UK government could buy Stoke with pocket change. But we all know what would happen.
If on the other hand you're telling me that Truss and Kwarteng's poor timing, presentation, political management, preparation, and actions following the budget were shit, I quite agree.
Therefore reduce the waiting lists at both ends of the pipeline.
1) Being denied a claim
2) A relative being denied a claim
3) A friend ring denied a claim
I do support AV as a much needed tweak, but a single seat based democracy rather than a national/regional votes based democracy delivers enough good things to be cautious about change. I don't expect to change any minds!
BTW, using this as a system for electing just one person to be POTUS combines the worst of multiple systems. Using it to elect 650n is fine with me.
But that is also, to an extent, about government, too.
And don't be so down on Stoke. It's not that bad a place.
The minibudget was never implemented.
Therefore you cannot say whether it would have succeeded or failed in its aim of returning the economy to strong economic growth.
I'm not sure what more I can say - you seem determined to make yourself look as stupid as possible, and it's a little awkward. Please desist.
There's a huge amount government could do to encourage growth.
Just not this one, very probably.
The important point for me is reducing the power of the party system. Hence the reason I think every vote in Parliament should be a free vote.
It is no surprise to me that the best debate for many years was the Assudted Dying debate when whips had no authority and MPs were voting on what was best for their constituents not what was best for their party.
My plan is to buy Stoke Space. Build their medium launcher. Then build a launch 10x bigger than Starship/Super heavy - 1000 tons to LEO. The launchpads will be in the centres of Slough, Bedford and Stoke. After the first launch at each site, there will be a lot of GCT to pay on the improvements to the localities...
It failed at the planning stage. It was announced and the economy crashed. If that isn't a definition of failure I don't know what is.
Just look at Ireland.
You would struggle to find an election with a stronger link between representatives and their constituencies, or even small parts of their constituencies.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/permanent-closure-walleys-quarry-take-9760718
I am expressing an opinion
You are a foul, toxic racist
He has been imprisoned for incitement.
This post earlier, from @Nigelb should at least set you straight. Hope all is well with you and yours.
The reporting of #porridgegate has been atrocious. You expect it of the tabloids, but Radio 4 Today were at it saying porridge had been labelled unhealthy.
Quaker Rolled Oats - 1g of sugar per 100g
Quaker Golden Syrup Oats - 15g per 100g
The latter’s ads are banned, the first are not.
I don’t think the reporters are too stupid the know the difference, so it’s obviously a confected story for the sake of a cheap headline. A bit bloody pathetic really.
https://x.com/DBanksy/status/1864297916883521973
I know @Leon is a fiction writer, who's books are based on imagined or made up versions of reality, and is a bit of a whiskey priest, but choosing a name used by JH .... come on FFS !
Honestly, this place is MAGICAL. And so few tourists because it’s so remote
Also, the main square is lit up for Christmas.
At dusk and through the evening the old people - and some young - literally bring rocking chairs out into the plazas, and sidewalks, or down to the riverbank. And they sit there, on their rocking chairs, nattering. I had read this before but I thought it was hyperbole. But it’s not. How blissfully laid-back is that?
It has an air of delicious unreality. In Mompos you can see why Colombia birthed magical realism. No coincidence Garcia Marquez loved it here
Rank, name, count
1 Muhammad 4,661
28 Mohammed 1,601
68 Mohammad 835
The thing about this isn't so much the number of Muslims, it's more a case of, is this a proxy for an increasing conservatism among them?
And there is a Spitfire for those who don't like china.
And as I said STV is not really proportional in terms of parties. Which is a good thing.
Or is one of these spellings more conservative than others? There must be a reason why one variant is more common than others. I'm sure a generation ago Mohammed was the most common variant.