https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
I'm going to bite on this one. He might end up PM one day but probably not the next one.
He'll be a bit old by the one after, by UK political standards... He's already 60.
...and might have the liver of an 80 year old.
My liver is in excellent condition according to my GP who requires blood tests every quarter due to my need to take blood thinners
Mind you I rarely drink !!!!
Long may it stay so!
Unlike you, Farage is not a healthy man and will, I suspect, age a lot in the next five years. He already looks a lot older than he is.
Fortunately my cardiologist provided me with a pacemaker in February having told me the day after Christmas last year that my heart was worn out and I needed an urgent pacemaker to save my life
Since then I remain under a haematologist, vascular surgeon, and my cardiologist, all of whom are performing valiantly to keep me going though at times its a struggle
Anyway I am so grateful for all my blessings
Indeed, good luck to you. Sadly a member of our congregation had a heart attack at the weekend and on a life support machine and unlikely to survive, she was a lovely lady and wife and mother and only in her early fifties so you never know what is around the corner
Yes, enjoy your life, what is left of it, as you do not know what is around the corner. That is why I am due to retire imminently.
I've been thinking about this a lot in the context of my daughter's young friend who died of methanol poisoning in Laos. You don't know what is coming and should live for today. Planning for the future is wise but don't let it get in the way of living.
This is why I think the FIRE movement miss the point. You're exactly right.
You need a balance. I am glad when I was putting money aside for my pensions/savings I still spent money doing things I enjoyed well I was younger too.
As for work, why do it if you don't have to. On no ones tombstone does it say, unironically, I wish I had spent more time in the Office.
The thing is that I am in the lucky position of liking my work. It gives me purpose and focus. I am content to keep doing it as long as they'll have me and my health holds.
Enjoying your job is a great position to be in. I used to enjoy mine as well but over the years the level of corporate micro management has increased and it has become less enjoyable.
I would certainly be interested in part time if the job was more enjoyable.
I hope, for you, your health holds and you keep enjoying it.
I can't really imagine enjoying my job that much. I was having the inevitable 'lottery' conversation with the football parents (following the postcode lottery win in Wythenshawe). "What would you buy?" I was asked. I can't think of anything I'd want to buy, so I just offered "I'd stop working." This was greeted with amazement by the dinner lady, the gas fitter, the shop worker... These people all want money for stuff, but like their jobs sufficiently that even with sufficient resources not to have to do these jobs, they'd carry on doing them. My job OTOH falls into that sweet spot of not too stressful/quite interesting/colleagues are quite pleasant - but if I didn't need a job there are hundreds of other things I would rather do with my time. Even anchored to my home town by the needs of my children, I'd be out walking, or cycling, or down the pub; I'd be spending more time with my kids, or with my parents; I'd be able to volunteer to do all those hundreds of small jobs a community needs doing; I;'d be able to start to tackle the backlog of Things That Need Doing Around The House; I'd be gardening, doing crosswords, jigsaws; I'd be calling amiably by friends' houses. I'd be able to look after my health. I'd read books, watch films. I'd join Lancashire CCC. I can't imagine how a job could be better than doing all that.
What you want first is to react slowly.
Back in the 1980s my dad had two employees, and the long-term one won the pools to the tune of several hundred k.
The same day he said "I'm offski" and walked out, then bought the big house, and moved in.
The disruption to his lifestyle /routine / social networks was enough that it caused problems for him, being classic working class.
Yes - the key to happiness is the expectation that next year should be a bit better than this. If you do it all at once, you diminish your chance for happiness in years 2 onwards.
That's a good definition but I'm not sure it always applies. Happiness is a slippery concept. Eg I was happy in 1978. I remember quite clearly that I was. Why? Probably just because I was 18. Whole life ahead of me bla bla. Yet by the following year I wasn't and 19 isn't exactly ancient. Still, for whatever reason happiness and I parted company in 79 and it took almost two decades for me to find it again.
1997 was when the gloom finally lifted. Just as I was beginning to think it never would, it did and this time it lasted. A sustained period of mental ease and bodily comfort all the way till 2010. Thirteen years. Not bad. Not bad at all. Of course it ended but I was prepared this time. I didn't get too down about being unhappy again because I knew it was only temporary. Sure enough, this summer, the sun appeared once more.
That’s tough. Years of depression and gloom?
I get the blue meanies but for weeks - or maybe a few months at most - not years
Sympathies
I thought that at first. But check the dates. It's a mild political joke.
I hope so. How awful, were it to be true.
Political events can certainly make me unhappy on occasion, but certainly not the the extent I'm overwhelmed for years on end.
Besides the dodgy source a bit of simple reasoning would prompt the question that if Ukraine has 1 million dead soldiers, and presumably 3-4 million wounded, why the hell is Putin not in Kyiv?
Precisely because Ukraine is fighting for every inch?
Having been to war-torn Ukraine twice, and seen the devastation - and the lack of fighting age men on the streets - and all the men on crutches - I am sure their true casualty figures are horrific
The official toll is ridiculous. I read somewhere that Zelensky recently claimed 43,000 dead. After 2.5 years of brutal and total war against Russia? Including a horribly costly and ineffective counter attack?
Multiply it by 3 or 4 maybe
No, that's pretty unlikely.
Double, perhaps - and the numbers for wounded are probably three times the number of killed. Ukraine has decent protection (both armoured vehicles and body armour) and vastly better combat medicine and motivation than the Russians (who on occasion just shoot their own wounded).
The Ukrainian figure for Russian casualties is 200k dead and 600k wounded.
It’s highly unlikely the Ukranian casualties are any worse than half that of the invaders.
A suggestion of a million is likely out by an order of magnitude.
At least.
I think the Ukrainian number is pretty credible. It still the horrific result of an immoral and illegal attack by Russia against a peaceful neighbour, but also a testament to the brave and brilliant defence that Ukraine has been able to make against their enemies.
You honestly think Ukraine has only lost 43,000 men? Implying 120,000 wounded?
This authoritative table suggests you are wrong
Quoting yourself as an authority? :-)
It's a load of balls anyway, without checking the source.
The killed/wounded ratio for Ukr vs Ru is extremely unlikely given the disparities in equipment, battlefield medicine and tactics.
Personally, I'd 'trust' what the Big Z said wrt dead and wounded figures for both sides. The Russian figures are lower than I expected, and he's playing a PR game: being caught lying about this would not necessarily play well. Russia can - and do - lie as much as they can.
I'm going to bite on this one. He might end up PM one day but probably not the next one.
He'll be a bit old by the one after, by UK political standards... He's already 60.
...and might have the liver of an 80 year old.
My liver is in excellent condition according to my GP who requires blood tests every quarter due to my need to take blood thinners
Mind you I rarely drink !!!!
Long may it stay so!
Unlike you, Farage is not a healthy man and will, I suspect, age a lot in the next five years. He already looks a lot older than he is.
Fortunately my cardiologist provided me with a pacemaker in February having told me the day after Christmas last year that my heart was worn out and I needed an urgent pacemaker to save my life
Since then I remain under a haematologist, vascular surgeon, and my cardiologist, all of whom are performing valiantly to keep me going though at times its a struggle
Anyway I am so grateful for all my blessings
Indeed, good luck to you. Sadly a member of our congregation had a heart attack at the weekend and on a life support machine and unlikely to survive, she was a lovely lady and wife and mother and only in her early fifties so you never know what is around the corner
Yes, enjoy your life, what is left of it, as you do not know what is around the corner. That is why I am due to retire imminently.
I've been thinking about this a lot in the context of my daughter's young friend who died of methanol poisoning in Laos. You don't know what is coming and should live for today. Planning for the future is wise but don't let it get in the way of living.
This is why I think the FIRE movement miss the point. You're exactly right.
You need a balance. I am glad when I was putting money aside for my pensions/savings I still spent money doing things I enjoyed well I was younger too.
As for work, why do it if you don't have to. On no ones tombstone does it say, unironically, I wish I had spent more time in the Office.
The thing is that I am in the lucky position of liking my work. It gives me purpose and focus. I am content to keep doing it as long as they'll have me and my health holds.
Enjoying your job is a great position to be in. I used to enjoy mine as well but over the years the level of corporate micro management has increased and it has become less enjoyable.
I would certainly be interested in part time if the job was more enjoyable.
I hope, for you, your health holds and you keep enjoying it.
I can't really imagine enjoying my job that much. I was having the inevitable 'lottery' conversation with the football parents (following the postcode lottery win in Wythenshawe). "What would you buy?" I was asked. I can't think of anything I'd want to buy, so I just offered "I'd stop working." This was greeted with amazement by the dinner lady, the gas fitter, the shop worker... These people all want money for stuff, but like their jobs sufficiently that even with sufficient resources not to have to do these jobs, they'd carry on doing them. My job OTOH falls into that sweet spot of not too stressful/quite interesting/colleagues are quite pleasant - but if I didn't need a job there are hundreds of other things I would rather do with my time. Even anchored to my home town by the needs of my children, I'd be out walking, or cycling, or down the pub; I'd be spending more time with my kids, or with my parents; I'd be able to volunteer to do all those hundreds of small jobs a community needs doing; I;'d be able to start to tackle the backlog of Things That Need Doing Around The House; I'd be gardening, doing crosswords, jigsaws; I'd be calling amiably by friends' houses. I'd be able to look after my health. I'd read books, watch films. I'd join Lancashire CCC. I can't imagine how a job could be better than doing all that.
What you want first is to react slowly.
Back in the 1980s my dad had two employees, and the long-term one won the pools to the tune of several hundred k.
The same day he said "I'm offski" and walked out, then bought the big house, and moved in.
The disruption to his lifestyle /routine / social networks was enough that it caused problems for him, being classic working class.
Yes - the key to happiness is the expectation that next year should be a bit better than this. If you do it all at once, you diminish your chance for happiness in years 2 onwards.
That's a good definition but I'm not sure it always applies. Happiness is a slippery concept. Eg I was happy in 1978. I remember quite clearly that I was. Why? Probably just because I was 18. Whole life ahead of me bla bla. Yet by the following year I wasn't and 19 isn't exactly ancient. Still, for whatever reason happiness and I parted company in 79 and it took almost two decades for me to find it again.
1997 was when the gloom finally lifted. Just as I was beginning to think it never would, it did and this time it lasted. A sustained period of mental ease and bodily comfort all the way till 2010. Thirteen years. Not bad. Not bad at all. Of course it ended but I was prepared this time. I didn't get too down about being unhappy again because I knew it was only temporary. Sure enough, this summer, the sun appeared once more.
That’s tough. Years of depression and gloom?
I get the blue meanies but for weeks - or maybe a few months at most - not years
Sympathies
I thought that at first. But check the dates. It's a mild political joke.
Ah. Clever
This may be a rare if not unique occasion where my natural kindness overwhelmed my good sense
No, nice reply. I appreciated it.
Well seeing as it’s chrimbo and we’re being nice, the other day you said something which worried me. I congratulated someone else for describing Starmer as a timeserver, just working his notice, waiting for the end. And you said “aren’t we all”
And I got an impression of you feeling sad up there in Hampstead and I felt sorry for you - and I guess my reaction today was a continuation of that
*slightly embarrassed, perfunctory man hug*
Right, now that nonsense is done we can go back to roundly abusing each other. As you were
It does seem unlikely, I agree. I reckon Ukrainian losses are horrendous - in the 100,000s - but 1 million?! Very hard to believe
There’s an allegation that the ABC video is fake, I’ll go down the rabbit hole…
Given that Ukraine hasn't engaged in a single contested offensive in over a year, those figures seem highly implausible to the point of misinformation. The UAF learned their lesson from the 2023 southern offensive and have retreated to a WWI strategy to suit the WWI conditions: exhaust the enemy through attrition and seek defeat on the home front. Russia is helpfully playing into their hands with their meatgrinder assaults. As long as those assaults trade only small amounts of relatively insignificant territory and at heavily disproportionate cost to Russia - both of which seem to be the case so far - then the strategy is the right one.
However, both sides are now in something of a race against time. For Russia, there's the exhaustion of manpower and equipment and the growing dysfunction of the economy and country as a whole; for Ukraine, there's the likelihood of Trump cutting off (or at the least, cutting) aid, as well as their own limited resources.
But Ukraine is still fighting for its very existence whereas Russia is not (although its regime probably is). If the West can continue to supply Ukraine, it will win. That's a big 'if' though given the craven leadership currently being shown.
My impression is Ukraine is close to exhaustion while Russia is some way off, sadly. I do believe Russian casualties are multiples of the Ukrainian ones but it can probably afford this as a country. Not great for the casualties of course.
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Via @FindoutnowUK, On 11th December, Changes w/ 4th December.
To get accurate polling data aren't we supposed to quietly add ten to the Tories and take ten from Labour? On that basis the Tories are smashing your lot out of the park.
It's not necessarily a "win". It's not the best person of the year, just the most significant. Stalin, Hitler, Xiaoping and Khomeini have all been chosen.
Besides the dodgy source a bit of simple reasoning would prompt the question that if Ukraine has 1 million dead soldiers, and presumably 3-4 million wounded, why the hell is Putin not in Kyiv?
Precisely because Ukraine is fighting for every inch?
Having been to war-torn Ukraine twice, and seen the devastation - and the lack of fighting age men on the streets - and all the men on crutches - I am sure their true casualty figures are horrific
The official toll is ridiculous. I read somewhere that Zelensky recently claimed 43,000 dead. After 2.5 years of brutal and total war against Russia? Including a horribly costly and ineffective counter attack?
Multiply it by 3 or 4 maybe
No, that's pretty unlikely.
Double, perhaps - and the numbers for wounded are probably three times the number of killed. Ukraine has decent protection (both armoured vehicles and body armour) and vastly better combat medicine and motivation than the Russians (who on occasion just shoot their own wounded).
The Ukrainian figure for Russian casualties is 200k dead and 600k wounded.
It’s highly unlikely the Ukranian casualties are any worse than half that of the invaders.
A suggestion of a million is likely out by an order of magnitude.
At least.
I think the Ukrainian number is pretty credible. It still the horrific result of an immoral and illegal attack by Russia against a peaceful neighbour, but also a testament to the brave and brilliant defence that Ukraine has been able to make against their enemies.
You honestly think Ukraine has only lost 43,000 men? Implying 120,000 wounded?
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
I'm going to bite on this one. He might end up PM one day but probably not the next one.
He'll be a bit old by the one after, by UK political standards... He's already 60.
...and might have the liver of an 80 year old.
My liver is in excellent condition according to my GP who requires blood tests every quarter due to my need to take blood thinners
Mind you I rarely drink !!!!
Long may it stay so!
Unlike you, Farage is not a healthy man and will, I suspect, age a lot in the next five years. He already looks a lot older than he is.
Fortunately my cardiologist provided me with a pacemaker in February having told me the day after Christmas last year that my heart was worn out and I needed an urgent pacemaker to save my life
Since then I remain under a haematologist, vascular surgeon, and my cardiologist, all of whom are performing valiantly to keep me going though at times its a struggle
Anyway I am so grateful for all my blessings
Indeed, good luck to you. Sadly a member of our congregation had a heart attack at the weekend and on a life support machine and unlikely to survive, she was a lovely lady and wife and mother and only in her early fifties so you never know what is around the corner
Yes, enjoy your life, what is left of it, as you do not know what is around the corner. That is why I am due to retire imminently.
I've been thinking about this a lot in the context of my daughter's young friend who died of methanol poisoning in Laos. You don't know what is coming and should live for today. Planning for the future is wise but don't let it get in the way of living.
This is why I think the FIRE movement miss the point. You're exactly right.
You need a balance. I am glad when I was putting money aside for my pensions/savings I still spent money doing things I enjoyed well I was younger too.
As for work, why do it if you don't have to. On no ones tombstone does it say, unironically, I wish I had spent more time in the Office.
The thing is that I am in the lucky position of liking my work. It gives me purpose and focus. I am content to keep doing it as long as they'll have me and my health holds.
Enjoying your job is a great position to be in. I used to enjoy mine as well but over the years the level of corporate micro management has increased and it has become less enjoyable.
I would certainly be interested in part time if the job was more enjoyable.
I hope, for you, your health holds and you keep enjoying it.
I can't really imagine enjoying my job that much. I was having the inevitable 'lottery' conversation with the football parents (following the postcode lottery win in Wythenshawe). "What would you buy?" I was asked. I can't think of anything I'd want to buy, so I just offered "I'd stop working." This was greeted with amazement by the dinner lady, the gas fitter, the shop worker... These people all want money for stuff, but like their jobs sufficiently that even with sufficient resources not to have to do these jobs, they'd carry on doing them. My job OTOH falls into that sweet spot of not too stressful/quite interesting/colleagues are quite pleasant - but if I didn't need a job there are hundreds of other things I would rather do with my time. Even anchored to my home town by the needs of my children, I'd be out walking, or cycling, or down the pub; I'd be spending more time with my kids, or with my parents; I'd be able to volunteer to do all those hundreds of small jobs a community needs doing; I;'d be able to start to tackle the backlog of Things That Need Doing Around The House; I'd be gardening, doing crosswords, jigsaws; I'd be calling amiably by friends' houses. I'd be able to look after my health. I'd read books, watch films. I'd join Lancashire CCC. I can't imagine how a job could be better than doing all that.
What you want first is to react slowly.
Back in the 1980s my dad had two employees, and the long-term one won the pools to the tune of several hundred k.
The same day he said "I'm offski" and walked out, then bought the big house, and moved in.
The disruption to his lifestyle /routine / social networks was enough that it caused problems for him, being classic working class.
Yes - the key to happiness is the expectation that next year should be a bit better than this. If you do it all at once, you diminish your chance for happiness in years 2 onwards.
That's a good definition but I'm not sure it always applies. Happiness is a slippery concept. Eg I was happy in 1978. I remember quite clearly that I was. Why? Probably just because I was 18. Whole life ahead of me bla bla. Yet by the following year I wasn't and 19 isn't exactly ancient. Still, for whatever reason happiness and I parted company in 79 and it took almost two decades for me to find it again.
1997 was when the gloom finally lifted. Just as I was beginning to think it never would, it did and this time it lasted. A sustained period of mental ease and bodily comfort all the way till 2010. Thirteen years. Not bad. Not bad at all. Of course it ended but I was prepared this time. I didn't get too down about being unhappy again because I knew it was only temporary. Sure enough, this summer, the sun appeared once more.
That’s tough. Years of depression and gloom?
I get the blue meanies but for weeks - or maybe a few months at most - not years
Sympathies
I thought that at first. But check the dates. It's a mild political joke.
I hope so. How awful, were it to be true.
Political events can certainly make me unhappy on occasion, but certainly not the the extent I'm overwhelmed for years on end.
Thankfully so. I do have a touch of TDS though. Not in the sense of being unable to see him clearly and accurately - I do and only wish everyone did - but in the sense of how much of my headspace he takes up. I think about him more than I should and far more than I want to.
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
It’s a perfectly legitimate position for anyone to take. The war cannot be won by Ukraine without actual NATO troops, that’s never going to happen, ergo it’s time for a truce
I fully expect Reform to take the lead in some polls in the new year.
On Farage becoming PM. Yes he absolutely can. I don’t think I’d put him as favourite. But it’s certainly a plausible outcome at the next GE.
Without any judgement or criticism, I do think that the centrist, consensus groupthink can form an opinion that it just can’t happen, he is too extreme, too marmite, too fringe, elections are won from the centre, yadda yadda. But our party system is breaking down, and people are more fluid in their voting patterns, and people do not feel listened to by their politicians. The backlash against Labour is a symptom of this - they are viewed as more of the same, not agents of change.
Labour are banking on things improving to an extent that they’ll be given another go. The Tories are banking on the fact that if Labour are unpopular they will be the repository of the anti-Labour vote as the second party. Neither of these assumptions, in my view, are safe ones to make.
The other point to make is that the media landscape has changed, and people are much more commonly digesting things that reflect their own prejudices. This poses a challenge for Labour, because even if NHS waiting times come down, even if immigration ticks down, even if more houses are built, if people don’t feel better or don’t believe things are improving, they won’t give Labour their vote. Statistics and meeting targets aren’t necessarily going to win them an election.
I absolutely think it can happen, but I don't think it's a 1 in 3.7 chance that Farage will be the next PM.
If people don't want it to happen, then I think they need to tie Farage to Trump as much as possible, and Farage-Trump as being opposed to the UK national interest.
I don’t think anyone has really come up with a great formula to tackle the populist right in recent times. The closest thing to a spoiler tactic was seen in the French parliamentary election where the left and centre clubbed together, though of course that created a chaotic result. It might be that “holding your nose and voting for the party most likely to defeat Reform” could become a thing here, in some seats. There are plenty of seats though where I wouldn’t expect that dynamic to work. It might help the LDs for instance in the Home Counties though.
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
Is it a perfectly legitimate position to take that vaccines don't work and that Trump won the 2020 Presidential election?
Besides the dodgy source a bit of simple reasoning would prompt the question that if Ukraine has 1 million dead soldiers, and presumably 3-4 million wounded, why the hell is Putin not in Kyiv?
Precisely because Ukraine is fighting for every inch?
Having been to war-torn Ukraine twice, and seen the devastation - and the lack of fighting age men on the streets - and all the men on crutches - I am sure their true casualty figures are horrific
The official toll is ridiculous. I read somewhere that Zelensky recently claimed 43,000 dead. After 2.5 years of brutal and total war against Russia? Including a horribly costly and ineffective counter attack?
Multiply it by 3 or 4 maybe
No, that's pretty unlikely.
Double, perhaps - and the numbers for wounded are probably three times the number of killed. Ukraine has decent protection (both armoured vehicles and body armour) and vastly better combat medicine and motivation than the Russians (who on occasion just shoot their own wounded).
The Ukrainian figure for Russian casualties is 200k dead and 600k wounded.
It’s highly unlikely the Ukranian casualties are any worse than half that of the invaders.
A suggestion of a million is likely out by an order of magnitude.
At least.
I think the Ukrainian number is pretty credible. It still the horrific result of an immoral and illegal attack by Russia against a peaceful neighbour, but also a testament to the brave and brilliant defence that Ukraine has been able to make against their enemies.
You honestly think Ukraine has only lost 43,000 men? Implying 120,000 wounded?
This authoritative table suggests you are wrong
Quoting yourself as an authority? :-)
It's a load of balls anyway, without checking the source.
The killed/wounded ratio for Ukr vs Ru is extremely unlikely given the disparities in equipment, battlefield medicine and tactics.
Personally, I'd 'trust' what the Big Z said wrt dead and wounded figures for both sides. The Russian figures are lower than I expected, and he's playing a PR game: being caught lying about this would not necessarily play well. Russia can - and do - lie as much as they can.
No figures are 100% reliable. For example, 20% of US military deaths in the Korean War are still those listed as "missing, presumed dead".
The proportion of "missing" among civilian deaths is far higher than that.
It's not necessarily a "win". It's not the best person of the year, just the most significant. Stalin, Hitler, Xiaoping and Khomeini have all been chosen.
Difficult to think of another contender on those grounds tbh.
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
How can you be more of a nutcase than "She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin". ?
Nutcase is putting it very mildly. She needs committing to a mental asylum
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
This bit sounds like someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and thinks that true if everyone else.
..it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine...
Whatever you think about their sanity, they are clearly not qualified to actually manage anything.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
I haven't watched PMQs for ages but the consensus I've read is she struggles against him.
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
Is it a perfectly legitimate position to take that vaccines don't work and that Trump won the 2020 Presidential election?
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
In a speech in New York she almost said as much last week. He doesn't hate her because she is brilliant and working class but because she is a woman from an ethnic minority.
I fully expect Reform to take the lead in some polls in the new year.
On Farage becoming PM. Yes he absolutely can. I don’t think I’d put him as favourite. But it’s certainly a plausible outcome at the next GE.
Without any judgement or criticism, I do think that the centrist, consensus groupthink can form an opinion that it just can’t happen, he is too extreme, too marmite, too fringe, elections are won from the centre, yadda yadda. But our party system is breaking down, and people are more fluid in their voting patterns, and people do not feel listened to by their politicians. The backlash against Labour is a symptom of this - they are viewed as more of the same, not agents of change.
Labour are banking on things improving to an extent that they’ll be given another go. The Tories are banking on the fact that if Labour are unpopular they will be the repository of the anti-Labour vote as the second party. Neither of these assumptions, in my view, are safe ones to make.
The other point to make is that the media landscape has changed, and people are much more commonly digesting things that reflect their own prejudices. This poses a challenge for Labour, because even if NHS waiting times come down, even if immigration ticks down, even if more houses are built, if people don’t feel better or don’t believe things are improving, they won’t give Labour their vote. Statistics and meeting targets aren’t necessarily going to win them an election.
I absolutely think it can happen, but I don't think it's a 1 in 3.7 chance that Farage will be the next PM.
If people don't want it to happen, then I think they need to tie Farage to Trump as much as possible, and Farage-Trump as being opposed to the UK national interest.
Counterfactual - what now would be the state of play had Rishi hung on, pushing around the paper clips to see if anything turned up ?
I'd be looking at over £2k in winnings on the GE date
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
This bit sounds like someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and thinks that true if everyone else.
..it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine...
Whatever you think about their sanity, they are clearly not qualified to actually manage anything.
It's just politics. Washington is full of people who do give the impression they care more about some patch of turf on the other side of the world than they do about their neighbours.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
I haven't watched PMQs for ages but the consensus I've read is she struggles against him.
I think she does struggle, though some of that comes from the fact that it’s very difficult for her to say anything at the moment that can’t be effectively countered with a “previous government nyer nyer nyer”. She does have a habit of walking into clangers though, and not a tremendous ability to think on her feet (which surprises me). I have noticed what Nigel says though, he genuinely does get very tetchy with her.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
In a speech in New York she almost said as much last week. He doesn't hate her because she is brilliant and working class but because she is a woman from an ethnic minority.
Well she isn't brilliant or working class but is a woman from an ethnic minority, so yeah.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
I haven't watched PMQs for ages but the consensus I've read is she struggles against him.
I think she does struggle, though some of that comes from the fact that it’s very difficult for her to say anything at the moment that can’t be effectively countered with a “previous government nyer nyer nyer”. She does have a habit of walking into clangers though, and not a tremendous ability to think on her feet (which surprises me). I have noticed what Nigel says though, he genuinely does get very tetchy with her.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes pink and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
This bit sounds like someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and thinks that true if everyone else.
..it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine...
Whatever you think about their sanity, they are clearly not qualified to actually manage anything.
It's just politics. Washington is full of people who do give the impression they care more about some patch of turf on the other side of the world than they do about their neighbours.
It's plain dumb is what it is. If she were an effective politician, she'd now be in the Senate.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes read and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
The people who are good at it, aren’t going into politics.
An account for Leon to follow. The Triton test program is based at NAS Patuxent River. The airspaces seen here are both test ranges reserved for military use.
There is absolutely nothing going on here except a flight test.
I beg people to stop paying attention to 99.99% of accounts discussing the latest UAP fervor because the amount of the people posting that knows a damn thing about aviation, commercial or military, rounds to zero. https://x.com/the_engi_nerd/status/1866870367895121921
Fairly long so if you just want the highlights scroll to the first graph and there's a concise summary of how the numbers stack up for the three parts of the season, plus the overall results.
Also, I've renamed the blog so it's rather more on-topic.
You managed to find the quote button the other day, I would just like to say a genuine, well done.
Me, use the quote button? Sounds like fake news.
I always assumed your old blog (enormohaddock?) served hake news
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes read and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
The people who are good at it, aren’t going into politics.
Indeed. If I may make one stray comment about AI - the time is fast approaching when robots will do government better than any humans. Make better decisions, untainted by greed, vanity, spite, stupidity
Fairly long so if you just want the highlights scroll to the first graph and there's a concise summary of how the numbers stack up for the three parts of the season, plus the overall results.
Also, I've renamed the blog so it's rather more on-topic.
You managed to find the quote button the other day, I would just like to say a genuine, well done.
Me, use the quote button? Sounds like fake news.
I always assumed your old blog (enormohaddock?) served hake news
It is almost certain that the ECB will cut interest rates again today. The growing differential in interest rates is driving Sterling upwards against the Euro to levels not seen for some years. The BoE should be paying more attention to the risks this poses to both growth and exports although the downward pressure on imported goods may be welcome.
Our government is anxious to reset relations with the EU and, as a Brexit voter, I have no problem with that although we should be aware that the cost of this is a continuation of our massive trade deficit with them. The challenge is going to be getting any intelligent response from the EU when both its more important governments are now caretakers after their governments' collapse. My expectation is that the UK will be frustrated by the incoherence of the EU position.
The 'reset' seems singularly unnecessary, given Rishi Sunak was referred to as 'Darling Rishi' by Von Der Leyen, after he scrapped Boris's NIP bill and gave the EU most advantageous terms in his Windsor Framework deal - which is unwinding even now. I don't see how we can be 'liked' any more by the EU - Sir Lardbucket and his hopeless cabinet hanging around EU meetings and committees like some stalkery ex boyfriend is not going to help.
We need a businesslike relationship with the EU based on mutual respect and boundaries, without either bellicose performative snubs or craven toadying.
On a related note, if Kemi wants to score a point at PMQs, she will ask Sir Europe if, given his criticism of the bat tunnel, he is prepared to overturn the EU law on species protection which necessitated the bat tunnel. I really can't think how he could answer that without seeming like an incompetent craven hypocrite, or committing himself to a (welcome imo) divergence.
Apologies if it's been mentioned, but today is the anniversary of Big Dog's landslide. A warning to those confident of events in 2029.
In a parallel universe he will have just celebrated his second landslide win with just three more to go.
Well, we'll never know what would have happened if the Librarian hadn't dropped his banana onto the experimental reactor in Unseen University squash court.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes read and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
The people who are good at it, aren’t going into politics.
Indeed. If I may make one stray comment about AI - the time is fast approaching when robots will do government better than any humans. Make better decisions, untainted by greed, vanity, spite, stupidity
Within 5 years?
We have Starmer and before that Sunak and Truss. Will we notice a difference?
Besides the dodgy source a bit of simple reasoning would prompt the question that if Ukraine has 1 million dead soldiers, and presumably 3-4 million wounded, why the hell is Putin not in Kyiv?
Precisely because Ukraine is fighting for every inch?
Having been to war-torn Ukraine twice, and seen the devastation - and the lack of fighting age men on the streets - and all the men on crutches - I am sure their true casualty figures are horrific
The official toll is ridiculous. I read somewhere that Zelensky recently claimed 43,000 dead. After 2.5 years of brutal and total war against Russia? Including a horribly costly and ineffective counter attack?
Multiply it by 3 or 4 maybe
No, that's pretty unlikely.
Double, perhaps - and the numbers for wounded are probably three times the number of killed. Ukraine has decent protection (both armoured vehicles and body armour) and vastly better combat medicine and motivation than the Russians (who on occasion just shoot their own wounded).
The Ukrainian figure for Russian casualties is 200k dead and 600k wounded.
It’s highly unlikely the Ukranian casualties are any worse than half that of the invaders.
A suggestion of a million is likely out by an order of magnitude.
At least.
I think the Ukrainian number is pretty credible. It still the horrific result of an immoral and illegal attack by Russia against a peaceful neighbour, but also a testament to the brave and brilliant defence that Ukraine has been able to make against their enemies.
You honestly think Ukraine has only lost 43,000 men? Implying 120,000 wounded?
This authoritative table suggests you are wrong
Quoting yourself as an authority? :-)
It's a load of balls anyway, without checking the source.
The killed/wounded ratio for Ukr vs Ru is extremely unlikely given the disparities in equipment, battlefield medicine and tactics.
Personally, I'd 'trust' what the Big Z said wrt dead and wounded figures for both sides. The Russian figures are lower than I expected, and he's playing a PR game: being caught lying about this would not necessarily play well. Russia can - and do - lie as much as they can.
No figures are 100% reliable. For example, 20% of US military deaths in the Korean War are still those listed as "missing, presumed dead".
The proportion of "missing" among civilian deaths is far higher than that.
Well, yes. Which is one reason I put 'trust' in quotes. I expect Big Z's numbers to be ballpark, especially when compared to notable expert @Leon's...
Decades of under-diagnosis, or overdiagnosis now, or smartphones are the devil. Who knows? Scotland:
What do we do when it reaches 50%? Start deducting funding for each child who doesn't need it rather than adding funding for each who does?
While this can only be a partial explanation, the custom of some to marry cousins is having an effect. Do it over a couple of generations and the genetic similarity between cousins is akin to that of siblings.
The risk of congenital anomalies from consanguinity is, IRRC*, equivalent to about ten years of maternal age. So your mid-twenties ethnic minority mother with cousin as husband has about the same risk as your mid-thirties white mother married to Fred from round the corner Tinder.
Of course, SEN is a lot broader than congenital anomalies.
*I might not remember correctly, of course, but remember a reading a peer reviewed (and apparently well done) paper showing something like that, which was quite an eye-opener. Consanguinity of course matters or not depending on the genes - if you're a carrier of a recessive bad gene you'd best not marry your cousin; if you're not then it generally won't matter anyway
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes read and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
The people who are good at it, aren’t going into politics.
Indeed. If I may make one stray comment about AI - the time is fast approaching when robots will do government better than any humans. Make better decisions, untainted by greed, vanity, spite, stupidity
Within 5 years?
We have Starmer and before that Sunak and Truss. Will we notice a difference?
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes read and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
The people who are good at it, aren’t going into politics.
Indeed. If I may make one stray comment about AI - the time is fast approaching when robots will do government better than any humans. Make better decisions, untainted by greed, vanity, spite, stupidity
Within 5 years?
We have Starmer and before that Sunak and Truss. Will we notice a difference?
Yes
Whoosh!
I was alluding to the notion that we already have robots running the show.
Ian Dunt @iandunt.bsky.social · 12m Some poor c*** somewhere has just arrived in the UK and is staring out the window whispering: 'The weather isn't as bad as they said. It's so much worse.'
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
This bit sounds like someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and thinks that true if everyone else.
..it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine...
Whatever you think about their sanity, they are clearly not qualified to actually manage anything.
It's just politics. Washington is full of people who do give the impression they care more about some patch of turf on the other side of the world than they do about their neighbours.
Perhaps such people ought to add "and of course I care about domestic issues too" whenever they express support for Ukraine?
Ian Dunt @iandunt.bsky.social · 12m Some poor c*** somewhere has just arrived in the UK and is staring out the window whispering: 'The weather isn't as bad as they said. It's so much worse.'
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes read and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
The people who are good at it, aren’t going into politics.
Indeed. If I may make one stray comment about AI - the time is fast approaching when robots will do government better than any humans. Make better decisions, untainted by greed, vanity, spite, stupidity
Within 5 years?
We have Starmer and before that Sunak and Truss. Will we notice a difference?
Yes
Whoosh!
I was alluding to the notion that we already have robots running the show.
Apparently big changes to housing today. But let’s see, they always say that.
Yes.
IMO they need to hit the vested interests which are blocks (eg speculative private land banking), in a way that aligns Local Political interests with development following the legal principles. In a way which is enforcible.
My checklist of what is required:
1 Local Councillors to be focussed on long term direction / strategy / local plans, not micro-management of individual applications. 2 Individual applications to be determined by Planning Professionals following law, not Planning Committees following parish pump politics. This should also remove some conflicts of interest / opportunity for corruption, though not all. 3 Housing targets to be mandatory, and obsessed objectively. 4 Possibilities for robust intervention if local Councillors sit on their hands. 5 Planning Gain to be capped in some effective way. 6 Encouragement / facilitation for local councils to be more proactive in Compulsory Purchase, potentially involving the opportunity to intervene on sustainable (in planning terms) development sites. 7 Possibility is streamlining enforcement. 8 All of the above will require capacity building.
Quite a lot of that is actually fairly likely to be done.
Do we have a link to when this statement is due?
I don't know. They've now published the post-consultation planning framework,
Oh, God, it's crap. They've made very minor tweaks to the existing one. I've been going through line by line and I'm a third of the way through and there's minimal meaningful change so far. The biggest concrete thing so far is that we're to reject applications for hot food takeaways and fast food outlets close to schools or where "a concentration of such uses is having an adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social-behaviour." And that we should take into account "The safety of children and other vulnerable users in proximity to open water, railways and other potential hazards."
There are hints that later on there's the Grey Belt stuff, which should be a significant change, but so far, everything else has been tinkering.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Apparently he is like this with anyone that questions him. Astonished and angered by their vulgar effrontery. It comes - it is said - from his many many years as a senior lawyer, he’s never been challenged, he’s always been the expert voice of authority, surrounded by grovelling
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
Yeah I got a bit of this when I met him and asked him a question about Brexit that he didn't seem to approve of. It might well be awkwardness rather than arrogance, but still it isn't great. That's why I voted for Nandy as leader.
It’s not just awkwardness. It’s more pomposity and self regard than “arrogance”. You can see it in almost every interview he does - if any question discomforts him his face goes read and he looks like he’s about to snap contemptuously at the questioner - then, just in time, he remembers he’s a politician and can’t do that. So he struggles towards a normal answer
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
The people who are good at it, aren’t going into politics.
Indeed. If I may make one stray comment about AI - the time is fast approaching when robots will do government better than any humans. Make better decisions, untainted by greed, vanity, spite, stupidity
Within 5 years?
My candidature is on the way.
I will offer peace. But first there will be a wild five minutes.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 4m Trump on incoming Treasury Secretary Bessent: "One of the things I liked about Scott is that he said long before I even knew who he was that the market is only doing well - this is before the election - bc they think Trump is gonna win. So we made Scott the Treasury Secretary"
When I went to pay for the ingredients the card payment system was down so I had to use CASH !!!
If you'd had no cash, you would have gone hungry.
Let that be a lesson to all.
But not the lesson that you think.
Cash in coins is obsolete. Cash in notes is mostly obsolete.
If you do not have a robust infrastructure that supports e-payments in every circumstance then you are a third world country saddling yourselves with the much higher costs of maintaining the obsolete cash option and making yourself into an increasingly pathetic theme park doomed to decline yet further.
The past is done. It is time for Britain to not merely embrace the future but to shape it.
Indeed so. It is rather like the fragile (and patronising) argument that old people / the infirm / disabled / poor use cash so WE MUST BAN CASHLESS BUSINESSES that many PBers advance.
If there is a digital divide* then generate policies to address that, rather than draconian regulation on businesses and public bodies that quite sensibly choose to save money, reduce hassle and mitigate risk by eschewing cash.
(*and there probably is, although millions of disadvantaged people living in London and have managed with a cashless transport network for years)
Apparently big changes to housing today. But let’s see, they always say that.
Yes.
IMO they need to hit the vested interests which are blocks (eg speculative private land banking), in a way that aligns Local Political interests with development following the legal principles. In a way which is enforcible.
My checklist of what is required:
1 Local Councillors to be focussed on long term direction / strategy / local plans, not micro-management of individual applications. 2 Individual applications to be determined by Planning Professionals following law, not Planning Committees following parish pump politics. This should also remove some conflicts of interest / opportunity for corruption, though not all. 3 Housing targets to be mandatory, and obsessed objectively. 4 Possibilities for robust intervention if local Councillors sit on their hands. 5 Planning Gain to be capped in some effective way. 6 Encouragement / facilitation for local councils to be more proactive in Compulsory Purchase, potentially involving the opportunity to intervene on sustainable (in planning terms) development sites. 7 Possibility is streamlining enforcement. 8 All of the above will require capacity building.
Quite a lot of that is actually fairly likely to be done.
Do we have a link to when this statement is due?
I don't know. They've now published the post-consultation planning framework,
Oh, God, it's crap. They've made very minor tweaks to the existing one. I've been going through line by line and I'm a third of the way through and there's minimal meaningful change so far. The biggest concrete thing so far is that we're to reject applications for hot food takeaways and fast food outlets close to schools or where "a concentration of such uses is having an adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social-behaviour." And that we should take into account "The safety of children and other vulnerable users in proximity to open water, railways and other potential hazards."
There are hints that later on there's the Grey Belt stuff, which should be a significant change, but so far, everything else has been tinkering.
Up to page 36. Mansard roofs are okay, apparently. Well, that'll make a significant help... somehow? Edit - a couple of pages further, something actually positive:
The following paragraph in the previous NPPF is now deleted:
130. In applying paragraphs 129a and b above to existing urban areas, significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area. Such circumstances should be evidenced through an authority-wide design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the development plan.
They need to do a lot more deletions and far fewer additions and minor amendments
Apparently big changes to housing today. But let’s see, they always say that.
Yes.
IMO they need to hit the vested interests which are blocks (eg speculative private land banking), in a way that aligns Local Political interests with development following the legal principles. In a way which is enforcible.
My checklist of what is required:
1 Local Councillors to be focussed on long term direction / strategy / local plans, not micro-management of individual applications. 2 Individual applications to be determined by Planning Professionals following law, not Planning Committees following parish pump politics. This should also remove some conflicts of interest / opportunity for corruption, though not all. 3 Housing targets to be mandatory, and obsessed objectively. 4 Possibilities for robust intervention if local Councillors sit on their hands. 5 Planning Gain to be capped in some effective way. 6 Encouragement / facilitation for local councils to be more proactive in Compulsory Purchase, potentially involving the opportunity to intervene on sustainable (in planning terms) development sites. 7 Possibility is streamlining enforcement. 8 All of the above will require capacity building.
Quite a lot of that is actually fairly likely to be done.
Do we have a link to when this statement is due?
I don't know. They've now published the post-consultation planning framework,
Oh, God, it's crap. They've made very minor tweaks to the existing one. I've been going through line by line and I'm a third of the way through and there's minimal meaningful change so far. The biggest concrete thing so far is that we're to reject applications for hot food takeaways and fast food outlets close to schools or where "a concentration of such uses is having an adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social-behaviour." And that we should take into account "The safety of children and other vulnerable users in proximity to open water, railways and other potential hazards."
There are hints that later on there's the Grey Belt stuff, which should be a significant change, but so far, everything else has been tinkering.
“Oh, God, it's crap. They've made very minor tweaks to the existing one.”
…. Is basically an excellent summary of this Labour government in total, and it’s relationship to the prior administration
Ian Dunt @iandunt.bsky.social · 12m Some poor c*** somewhere has just arrived in the UK and is staring out the window whispering: 'The weather isn't as bad as they said. It's so much worse.'
https://thehill.com/media/5036312-trump-kari-lake-director-voice-of-america/ President-elect Trump announced he is tapping Kari Lake, a former news anchor and staunch Trump supporter, to head the government-funded news outlet Voice of America. “I am pleased to announce that Kari Lake will serve as our next Director of the Voice of America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday night. Lake will “ensure that the American values of Freedom and Liberty are broadcast around the World FAIRLY and ACCURATELY, unlike the lies spread by the Fake News Media,” Trump added...
State-funded propaganda? Another tick on the "Are you a fascist?" checklist.
It's always been state-funded propaganda. What you are really saying is that America used to be great...
Indeed, it’s the American version of the World Service.
It’s there to give the US point of view to the rest of the world, but bound by journalistic standards rather than simply be the mouthpiece of the incumbent government.
That the new President would choose a 20-year veteran journalist to run it, is hardly surprising.
Veteran journalist is putting it nicely. She is not connected to reality, Sandpit. She is anti-vax, said masks didn't work, said she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19, was promoting ivermectin. This is all complete junk. She has repeatedly claimed election fraud against Trump and against herself that didn't exist. This is all complete junk.
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
None of those quotes sound like the ravings of a nutcase. It's a perfectly legitimate position for an American politician to take, even if you don't like it.
This bit sounds like someone who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and thinks that true if everyone else.
..it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine...
Whatever you think about their sanity, they are clearly not qualified to actually manage anything.
It's just politics. Washington is full of people who do give the impression they care more about some patch of turf on the other side of the world than they do about their neighbours.
Perhaps such people ought to add "and of course I care about domestic issues too" whenever they express support for Ukraine?
I can care that retired accountants in Hampstead don’t get mugged, *and* that Mrs Miggins next door can get her Zimmer over the hideously bad pavements round here.
Incidentally….
A builder who lives up the road, and I, have started a guerrilla project to improve the pavement. On a weekend, cones, HiViz and relay a paving stone or two.
Apparently big changes to housing today. But let’s see, they always say that.
Yes.
IMO they need to hit the vested interests which are blocks (eg speculative private land banking), in a way that aligns Local Political interests with development following the legal principles. In a way which is enforcible.
My checklist of what is required:
1 Local Councillors to be focussed on long term direction / strategy / local plans, not micro-management of individual applications. 2 Individual applications to be determined by Planning Professionals following law, not Planning Committees following parish pump politics. This should also remove some conflicts of interest / opportunity for corruption, though not all. 3 Housing targets to be mandatory, and obsessed objectively. 4 Possibilities for robust intervention if local Councillors sit on their hands. 5 Planning Gain to be capped in some effective way. 6 Encouragement / facilitation for local councils to be more proactive in Compulsory Purchase, potentially involving the opportunity to intervene on sustainable (in planning terms) development sites. 7 Possibility is streamlining enforcement. 8 All of the above will require capacity building.
Quite a lot of that is actually fairly likely to be done.
Do we have a link to when this statement is due?
I don't know. They've now published the post-consultation planning framework,
Oh, God, it's crap. They've made very minor tweaks to the existing one. I've been going through line by line and I'm a third of the way through and there's minimal meaningful change so far. The biggest concrete thing so far is that we're to reject applications for hot food takeaways and fast food outlets close to schools or where "a concentration of such uses is having an adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social-behaviour." And that we should take into account "The safety of children and other vulnerable users in proximity to open water, railways and other potential hazards."
There are hints that later on there's the Grey Belt stuff, which should be a significant change, but so far, everything else has been tinkering.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
I haven't watched PMQs for ages but the consensus I've read is she struggles against him.
I think she does struggle, though some of that comes from the fact that it’s very difficult for her to say anything at the moment that can’t be effectively countered with a “previous government nyer nyer nyer”. She does have a habit of walking into clangers though, and not a tremendous ability to think on her feet (which surprises me). I have noticed what Nigel says though, he genuinely does get very tetchy with her.
I'm actually fairly indifferent.
Just too many Nigels. There's going to be an accident.
There is going to be a massive increase in oil and gas production and lower bills
I suspect that US oil and gas production will continue to rise, as it did under Obama, Trump I, and Biden.
But it's highly unlikely there will be a massive increase, because US tight oil and gas production is highly price sensitive. At $100 oil, there'd be a big increase in drilling. At $50 oil, far fewer wells make commercial sense.
This also means that the two scenarios are a little bit contradictory: US energy production rises most in a scenario where energy is expensive. If energy prices fall from here, then US oil production likely does too, because those tight wells in the Permian have very high decline rates. Lower prices, means less drilling, means less replacement of high decline rate wells.
Once established, there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated. [deleted]: Authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, in which case proposals for changes should be made only through the plan-making process. Added: Exceptional circumstances in this context include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial or other development through other means. If that is the case, authorities should review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in this Framework and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt, when considered across the area of the plan.
Amended: From: 147. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
to 148. Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations. However, when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework. Strategic policy-making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
and then added: Where Green Belt land is released for development through plan preparation or review, the ‘Golden Rules’ in paragraph 156 below should apply
Chip Cities Rise in Japan’s Fields of Dreams The scale of Tokyo’s ambition creates the risk of spectacular failure, but so too does succumbing to decline in a sector the nation once dominated.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/features/2024-12-11/chip-cities-rise-in-japan-s-fields-of-dreams ..As the UK wrestles with the consequences of austerity, Mario Draghi urges Europe to spend, and the incoming US administration ponders unleashing Elon Musk’s style of cost-cutting, Japan’s past decisions demonstrate the benefits of building. The merits of investment versus saving is a debate Tokyo has had, too, but there the austerity crowd has largely lost out. And although the country bears the weight of the debts accumulated over past decades, the benefits are evident in infrastructure-dependent chip cities.
Public works projects, from apartments to alleviate housing crises to Japan’s $60 billion maglev, are often denounced soon after they’re launched. But doing nothing is easy. Just as nations must avoid getting old before getting rich, so too must they build before they get old — something China has successfully done, despite recent jitters. Will the countries that skipped that hard building when times were good and money was cheap fare so well when times are tougher, rates are higher and populations are declining?..
..Much like the “Two Americas,” I often speak of Two Japans. Visitors are frequently bamboozled when they first land — having heard only stories of decline, it can be jarring to find the pristine streets and trains of Tokyo. But while major urban regions are booming, there is another Japan, one less seen: the rural areas left behind as younger people seek opportunity elsewhere, towns that are slowly returning to nature.
These nascent chip cities, with their combinations of geography, water, energy and infrastructure, may be a Third Japan: regional areas that can become vital economic powerhouses...
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
I haven't watched PMQs for ages but the consensus I've read is she struggles against him.
I think she does struggle, though some of that comes from the fact that it’s very difficult for her to say anything at the moment that can’t be effectively countered with a “previous government nyer nyer nyer”. She does have a habit of walking into clangers though, and not a tremendous ability to think on her feet (which surprises me). I have noticed what Nigel says though, he genuinely does get very tetchy with her.
I'm actually fairly indifferent.
Just too many Nigels. There's going to be an accident.
Once established, there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated. [deleted]: Authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, in which case proposals for changes should be made only through the plan-making process. Added: Exceptional circumstances in this context include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial or other development through other means. If that is the case, authorities should review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in this Framework and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt, when considered across the area of the plan.
Amended: From: 147. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
to 148. Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations. However, when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework. Strategic policy-making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
and then added: Where Green Belt land is released for development through plan preparation or review, the ‘Golden Rules’ in paragraph 156 below should apply
Then amended from
152. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 153. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations
To
153. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness [Note: Other than in the case of development on previously developed land or grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate]. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
And added: 155. The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where: a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed [Note: Which, in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Tests was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; and in the case of traveller sites means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites assessed in line with Planning Policy for Traveller sites.]; c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework [Note: In the case of development involving the provision of traveller sites, particular reference should be made to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites paragraph 13.]; and d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
I haven't watched PMQs for ages but the consensus I've read is she struggles against him.
I think she does struggle, though some of that comes from the fact that it’s very difficult for her to say anything at the moment that can’t be effectively countered with a “previous government nyer nyer nyer”. She does have a habit of walking into clangers though, and not a tremendous ability to think on her feet (which surprises me). I have noticed what Nigel says though, he genuinely does get very tetchy with her.
I'm actually fairly indifferent.
Just too many Nigels. There's going to be an accident.
it's my ongoing campaign for him to be referred to solely as "Farage".
Once established, there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated. [deleted]: Authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, in which case proposals for changes should be made only through the plan-making process. Added: Exceptional circumstances in this context include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial or other development through other means. If that is the case, authorities should review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in this Framework and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt, when considered across the area of the plan.
Amended: From: 147. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
to 148. Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations. However, when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework. Strategic policy-making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
and then added: Where Green Belt land is released for development through plan preparation or review, the ‘Golden Rules’ in paragraph 156 below should apply
Then amended from
152. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 153. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations
To
153. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness [Note: Other than in the case of development on previously developed land or grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate]. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
And added: 155. The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where: a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed [Note: Which, in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Tests was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; and in the case of traveller sites means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites assessed in line with Planning Policy for Traveller sites.]; c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework [Note: In the case of development involving the provision of traveller sites, particular reference should be made to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites paragraph 13.]; and d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.
And now the fabled "Golden Rules":
156. Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review [Note: The Golden Rules do not apply to: (i) developments brought forward on land released from the Green Belt through plans that were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework; and (ii) developments that were granted planning permission on Green Belt land prior to the publication of this Framework] , or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application [Including where there are variations made to existing permissions (where the existing permission involved development that was subject to the Golden Rules)] , the following contributions (‘Golden Rules’) should be made:
a. affordable housing which reflects either: (i) development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework; or (ii) until such policies are in place, the policy set out in paragraph 157 below;
b. necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and
c. the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
157. Before development plan policies for affordable housing are updated in line with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework, the affordable housing contribution required to satisfy the Golden Rules is 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50% [The 50% cap does not apply to rural exception sites or community-led development exception sites, or if the local planning authority has a relevant existing policy which would apply to the development which is above 50%] . In the absence of a pre-existing requirement for affordable housing, a 50% affordable housing contribution should apply by default. The use of site-specific viability assessment for land within or released from the Green Belt should be subject to the approach set out in national planning practice guidance on viability.
158. A development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission.
That's it. That's the significant changes in this NPPF. @BatteryCorrectHorse will be disappointed on masts - the Communications section is word for word unchanged
Jeez. Badenoch has achieved the impossible. She’s made Starmer appear human and approachable
One day we may have grown ups running the country but I won't hold my breath
I don't see anything childish about a tuna sandwich for lunch.
You would think our politicians had more important issues
He has to eat though. At least it's a nice banal comment. He's not trying to be funny or idiosyncratic.
Because he is so fucking boring and is incapable of either.
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
I haven't watched PMQs for ages but the consensus I've read is she struggles against him.
I think she does struggle, though some of that comes from the fact that it’s very difficult for her to say anything at the moment that can’t be effectively countered with a “previous government nyer nyer nyer”. She does have a habit of walking into clangers though, and not a tremendous ability to think on her feet (which surprises me). I have noticed what Nigel says though, he genuinely does get very tetchy with her.
I'm actually fairly indifferent.
Just too many Nigels. There's going to be an accident.
it's my ongoing campaign for him to be referred to solely as "Farage".
That's it. That's the significant changes in this NPPF. @BatteryCorrectHorse will be disappointed on masts - the Communications section is word for word unchanged
I read that one after our conversation the other day; my impression was that it was already massively tilted towards phone companies getting what they want, where they want it.
I'd prefer it to be far more strategic, with compulsory mast sharing and installations being far preferred on private land - which would need the rates paid to be on public land to be high enough to incentivise such placement.
Via @FindoutnowUK, On 11th December, Changes w/ 4th December.
This is the highest vote share that Reform has ever recorded in a poll, and the highest that it, or any of its predecessors have recorded, since a YouGov put the Brexit Party on 26% on 9-10 June 2019 (one of three vote shares of 26 they recorded, all of which had them in first place, and which are their joint-highest-ever GE opinion poll shares).
The last time they were within 1% of the lead (or higher) was 2-3 July 2019 (also YG).
The 23% Con share is their lowest since 2-3 Oct (Techne).
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
Having reflected a little, I think there is more coming, and this is just the first step.
There is a lot in legislation, like this, and that takes more time to change. Such changes will inter-mesh with the NPPF.
There was quite a lot from the recent past that is still to come into force, or may be altered. One, for example, is the "ending" of the 4 year rule, and making enforcement subject to a 10 year rule. In English that is how long development without planning has to exist before it cannot be enforced against, and to my eye that change makes it more difficult to get away with things since your neighbour has 10 years to report it for the Council to enforce.
There is more on that one at Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog. He has been my go to for nearly 15 years for some things such as Permitted Development and change of Use, and I am bereft that he has retired:
Via @FindoutnowUK, On 11th December, Changes w/ 4th December.
This is the highest vote share that Reform has ever recorded in a poll, and the highest that it, or any of its predecessors have recorded, since a YouGov put the Brexit Party on 26% on 9-10 June 2019 (one of three vote shares of 26 they recorded, all of which had them in first place, and which are their joint-highest-ever GE opinion poll shares).
The last time they were within 1% of the lead (or higher) was 2-3 July 2019 (also YG).
The 23% Con share is their lowest since 2-3 Oct (Techne).
Robert Jenrick will be Conservative leader inside 18 months if this continues.
If the most recent poll is the start of a trend - the Tories continue to make no progress and go slightly backwards in the face of an unpopular government - Jenrick will not be seen as the answer. This may of course be that there is no answer unless and until the Tories decide what they are for. If they exist to support Reform policies but communicate them less well then they have no point. If they intend to be a grown ups party for One Nation they are keeping quiet about it.
Boris and Farage are more likely next Tory leader than Jenrick. Don't bet the farm.
Comments
And like all the MAGA types you defend, she vehemently opposes supporting Ukraine. Here's her reaction to the House passing a bill for Ukrainian aid:
“Today, what they did when they voted to fund further fund Ukraine, and they were waving Ukrainian flags around and chanting Ukraine! I don’t know what country I’m in anymore!” Lake said. “And I think the American people are absolutely shocked and floored by what we witnessed in the House of Representatives today.”
Lake proceeded to sound off on the House for, in her view, prioritizing foreign conflicts over domestic issues.
“We’ve got to have a huge come to Jesus moment with these people,” Lake said. “By the way, I want everybody in the House of Representatives to know you’re representing the people of America, and it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine. Americans are suffering, and we demand that you start representing us.”
Here's her in another recent interview:
On the war in Ukraine, Lake said it’s foolish to think Russia can be defeated in the conflict unless NATO troops get involved, something she would never support.
“I think when it comes to Ukraine, the people of this country are tired of pouring their hard-earned money into it. I mean, it’s very obvious when the spring offensive went nowhere in Ukraine that that war was lost. You’d have to be a fool to think it’s still salvageable. The only way it could be is if we want to send NATO troops on the ground into Ukraine,” she said.
“It’s over, it’s lost. And I will never vote, by the way, to send NATO troops into Ukraine. The only question is how many more people are going to get killed.”
She is a dangerous nutcase. I mean, she's not been accused of sexual assault so that is better than some of Trump's previous nominations, but she's still a dangerous nutcase.
How awful, were it to be true.
Political events can certainly make me unhappy on occasion, but certainly not the the extent I'm overwhelmed for years on end.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=23&LAB=26&LIB=11&Reform=25&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024
https://x.com/I_loves_deep_nn/status/1866963448908877915
growing up, I never thought I’d have to fight quantum mechanics to bring you 1nm , keep tuned, 🤫
And I got an impression of you feeling sad up there in Hampstead and I felt sorry for you - and I guess my reaction today was a continuation of that
*slightly embarrassed, perfunctory man hug*
Right, now that nonsense is done we can go back to roundly abusing each other. As you were
Interesting though, watching him during PMQs, Badenoch really seems to get under his skin. He looks genuinely angry at her impudence . Maybe he is a closet racist misogynist.
Right-wing reactionaries 48%
It’s a deeply unattractive trait
I probably agree
For example, 20% of US military deaths in the Korean War are still those listed as "missing, presumed dead".
The proportion of "missing" among civilian deaths is far higher than that.
Nutcase is putting it very mildly. She needs committing to a mental asylum
..it’s about time you start caring about the people of this country, instead of caring so much about the border in Ukraine and the people of Ukraine...
Whatever you think about their sanity, they are clearly not qualified to actually manage anything.
"a person, group, idea, or object that "for better or for worse ... has done the most to influence the events of the year"
Previous winners have included Stalin, Andropov, Hitler, Trump, Nixon, Chiang Kai-shek and Putin - amongst others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYpSDNyVsFM
How in the name of God’s Holy Bollocks have we ended up with such a desperate bus load of inept political leaders, on all sides?
This is one reason why Farage has a proper chance. He’s a far better, smoother politician than any of them. Even if you detest his views
If she were an effective politician, she'd now be in the Senate.
So it very much seems like he has “won” in the normal sense
A warning to those confident of events in 2029.
The Triton test program is based at NAS Patuxent River. The airspaces seen here are both test ranges reserved for military use.
There is absolutely nothing going on here except a flight test.
I beg people to stop paying attention to 99.99% of accounts discussing the latest UAP fervor because the amount of the people posting that knows a damn thing about aviation, commercial or military, rounds to zero.
https://x.com/the_engi_nerd/status/1866870367895121921
This F1 one sounds interesting.
Within 5 years?
On this day in 2019: Caption of the Century, in The Washington Post:
We need a businesslike relationship with the EU based on mutual respect and boundaries, without either bellicose performative snubs or craven toadying.
On a related note, if Kemi wants to score a point at PMQs, she will ask Sir Europe if, given his criticism of the bat tunnel, he is prepared to overturn the EU law on species protection which necessitated the bat tunnel. I really can't think how he could answer that without seeming like an incompetent craven hypocrite, or committing himself to a (welcome imo) divergence.
Of course, SEN is a lot broader than congenital anomalies.
*I might not remember correctly, of course, but remember a reading a peer reviewed (and apparently well done) paper showing something like that, which was quite an eye-opener. Consanguinity of course matters or not depending on the genes - if you're a carrier of a recessive bad gene you'd best not marry your cousin; if you're not then it generally won't matter anyway
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/elton-john-legalising-cannabis-one-of-the-greatest-mistakes-of-all-time/ar-AA1vGbGS?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=0263ef6ddca7418c80f602b075a12a9c&ei=13
I was alluding to the notion that we already have robots running the show.
They've made very minor tweaks to the existing one. I've been going through line by line and I'm a third of the way through and there's minimal meaningful change so far.
The biggest concrete thing so far is that we're to reject applications for hot food takeaways and fast food outlets close to schools or where "a concentration of such uses is having an adverse impact on local health, pollution or anti-social-behaviour."
And that we should take into account "The safety of children and other vulnerable users in proximity to open water, railways and other potential hazards."
There are hints that later on there's the Grey Belt stuff, which should be a significant change, but so far, everything else has been tinkering.
I will offer peace. But first there will be a wild five minutes.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com
·
4m
Trump on incoming Treasury Secretary Bessent: "One of the things I liked about Scott is that he said long before I even knew who he was that the market is only doing well - this is before the election - bc they think Trump is gonna win. So we made Scott the Treasury Secretary"
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3ld4lbmervk2g
Vance just stands by and smiles.
He's an intelligent guy. He must know this is all utter bollox.
If there is a digital divide* then generate policies to address that, rather than draconian regulation on businesses and public bodies that quite sensibly choose to save money, reduce hassle and mitigate risk by eschewing cash.
(*and there probably is, although millions of disadvantaged people living in London and have managed with a cashless transport network for years)
Edit - a couple of pages further, something actually positive:
The following paragraph in the previous NPPF is now deleted:
130. In applying paragraphs 129a and b above to existing urban areas, significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area. Such circumstances should be evidenced through an authority-wide design code which is adopted or will be adopted as part of the development plan.
They need to do a lot more deletions and far fewer additions and minor amendments
They've made very minor tweaks to the existing one.”
…. Is basically an excellent summary of this Labour government in total, and it’s relationship to the prior administration
Incidentally….
A builder who lives up the road, and I, have started a guerrilla project to improve the pavement. On a weekend, cones, HiViz and relay a paving stone or two.
Haven't got round to reading it yet.
But it's highly unlikely there will be a massive increase, because US tight oil and gas production is highly price sensitive. At $100 oil, there'd be a big increase in drilling. At $50 oil, far fewer wells make commercial sense.
This also means that the two scenarios are a little bit contradictory: US energy production rises most in a scenario where energy is expensive. If energy prices fall from here, then US oil production likely does too, because those tight wells in the Permian have very high decline rates. Lower prices, means less drilling, means less replacement of high decline rate wells.
"Donald, can you bring up your showstopper?" ...
NEW THREAD
Once established, there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated.
[deleted]:
Authorities may choose to review and alter Green Belt boundaries where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, in which case proposals for changes should be made only through the plan-making process.Added: Exceptional circumstances in this context include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes, commercial or other development through other means. If that is the case, authorities should review Green Belt boundaries in accordance with the policies in this Framework and propose alterations to meet these needs in full, unless the review provides clear evidence that doing so would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt, when considered across the area of the plan.
Amended:
From:
147. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
to
148. Where it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give priority to previously developed land, then consider grey belt which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations. However, when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should determine whether a site’s location is appropriate with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework. Strategic policy-making authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
and then added:
Where Green Belt land is released for development through plan preparation or review, the ‘Golden Rules’ in paragraph 156 below should apply
The scale of Tokyo’s ambition creates the risk of spectacular failure, but so too does succumbing to decline in a sector the nation once dominated.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/features/2024-12-11/chip-cities-rise-in-japan-s-fields-of-dreams
..As the UK wrestles with the consequences of austerity, Mario Draghi urges Europe to spend, and the incoming US administration ponders unleashing Elon Musk’s style of cost-cutting, Japan’s past decisions demonstrate the benefits of building. The merits of investment versus saving is a debate Tokyo has had, too, but there the austerity crowd has largely lost out. And although the country bears the weight of the debts accumulated over past decades, the benefits are evident in infrastructure-dependent chip cities.
Public works projects, from apartments to alleviate housing crises to Japan’s $60 billion maglev, are often denounced soon after they’re launched. But doing nothing is easy. Just as nations must avoid getting old before getting rich, so too must they build before they get old — something China has successfully done, despite recent jitters. Will the countries that skipped that hard building when times were good and money was cheap fare so well when times are tougher, rates are higher and populations are declining?..
..Much like the “Two Americas,” I often speak of Two Japans. Visitors are frequently bamboozled when they first land — having heard only stories of decline, it can be jarring to find the pristine streets and trains of Tokyo. But while major urban regions are booming, there is another Japan, one less seen: the rural areas left behind as younger people seek opportunity elsewhere, towns that are slowly returning to nature.
These nascent chip cities, with their combinations of geography, water, energy and infrastructure, may be a Third Japan: regional areas that can become vital economic powerhouses...
152. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
153. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations
To
153. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness [Note: Other than in the case of development on previously developed land or grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate]. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
And added:
155. The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where:
a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;
b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed [Note: Which, in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Tests was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years; and in the case of traveller sites means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable traveller sites assessed in line with Planning Policy for Traveller sites.];
c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework [Note: In the case of development involving the provision of traveller sites, particular reference should be made to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites paragraph 13.]; and
d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.
156. Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review [Note: The Golden Rules do not apply to: (i) developments brought forward on land released from the Green Belt through plans that were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework; and (ii) developments that were granted planning permission on Green Belt land prior to the publication of this Framework] , or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application [Including where there are variations made to existing permissions (where the existing permission involved development that was subject to the Golden Rules)] , the following contributions (‘Golden Rules’) should be made:
a. affordable housing which reflects either: (i) development plan policies produced in accordance with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework; or (ii) until such policies are in place, the policy set out in paragraph 157 below;
b. necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure; and
c. the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. New residents should be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their home, whether through onsite provision or through access to offsite spaces.
157. Before development plan policies for affordable housing are updated in line with paragraphs 67-68 of this Framework, the affordable housing contribution required to satisfy the Golden Rules is 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50% [The 50% cap does not apply to rural exception sites or community-led development exception sites, or if the local planning authority has a relevant existing policy which would apply to the development which is above 50%] . In the absence of a pre-existing requirement for affordable housing, a 50% affordable housing contribution should apply by default. The use of site-specific viability assessment for land within or released from the Green Belt should be subject to the approach set out in national planning practice guidance on viability.
158. A development which complies with the Golden Rules should be given significant weight in favour of the grant of permission.
@BatteryCorrectHorse will be disappointed on masts - the Communications section is word for word unchanged
I'd prefer it to be far more strategic, with compulsory mast sharing and installations being far preferred on private land - which would need the rates paid to be on public land to be high enough to incentivise such placement.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/16
Summary by the Commons Library here:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/planning-rules-for-5g-masts-in-england/
Having reflected a little, I think there is more coming, and this is just the first step.
There is a lot in legislation, like this, and that takes more time to change. Such changes will inter-mesh with the NPPF.
There was quite a lot from the recent past that is still to come into force, or may be altered. One, for example, is the "ending" of the 4 year rule, and making enforcement subject to a 10 year rule. In English that is how long development without planning has to exist before it cannot be enforced against, and to my eye that change makes it more difficult to get away with things since your neighbour has 10 years to report it for the Council to enforce.
There is more on that one at Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog. He has been my go to for nearly 15 years for some things such as Permitted Development and change of Use, and I am bereft that he has retired:
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2023/12/four-year-rule-lives-on-for-now.html
Boris and Farage are more likely next Tory leader than Jenrick. Don't bet the farm.