No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
Sexy Fish is a very good restaurant.
As I learned the hard way, never google Sexy Fish as you get 'interesting' search results and targeted adverts for months.
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
Sexy Fish is very good restaurant.
As I learned the hard way, never google Sexy Fish as you get 'interesting' search results and targeted adverts for months.
I haven't been, but it's a bit of an Asian twist. There are of course wonderful sushi restaurants in London, many good Asian places for fish as well. The traditional European style fish restaurant is what is missing.
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
Sexy Fish is very good restaurant.
As I learned the hard way, never google Sexy Fish as you get 'interesting' search results and targeted adverts for months.
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
Sheekeys is now insanely expensive. And the oysters have not got any better. It's still fun but not worth the mad dosh unless you are really celebrating
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
Sexy Fish is very good restaurant.
As I learned the hard way, never google Sexy Fish as you get 'interesting' search results and targeted adverts for months.
I haven't been, but it's a bit of an Asian twist. There are of course wonderful sushi restaurants in London, many good Asian places for fish as well. The traditional European style fish restaurant is what is missing.
Sexy fish is good. If you want oysters go to Bentleys or Scotts, Sheekeys is now charging Scotts prices without the uber-poshness
OK can we all have a quiet, prayerful moment as I sit down and.... do my taxes
Who the FUCK called this "the festive season"?
If there was a sympathy button ….
If we’re talking tax sympathy, welcome to my current tax dilemma.
Years ago when we bought our French property, jointly with my parents, we did so through a type of property owning company called a Societe Civile Immobilier (SCI). Back then SCIs were the best means of bypassing the notorious Napoleonic succession laws that mean all property must be divided equally between offspring in the event of death.
The tax effect in those days was neutral: you were taxed on any income or capital gains from the property as if you owned it directly.
Now we’re about to start letting it out as a holiday home. In the meantime HMRC have decided that SCIs are a corporation subject to CT, rather than transparent. And ours would probably be considered UK resident. So letting income would be taxed as CT here, and as income tax in France. You can’t credit one against the other as they’re under different systems. So you pay double taxation, on a different profit basis, and quite possibly at an effective rate of more than 100%.
How about getting rid of the SCI then? Well it turns out certain naughty French people were using them to hold property offshore and save tax so as well as closing the loophole and tightening up the tax rules on SCI income, the French fisc introduced an exit charge on disposal of property out of an SCI or winding up of the company, amounting to upwards of 5% of the market value.
Bugger.
My next door neighbour is using the SCI--- system and is using it as a method of avoiding tax and costs. It is apparently a method by which the state can barely lay a glove on you and it works. As a member of our syndicate she chooses to pay nothing and as the property is now in the name of the SCI---- and not in her name there is no human to sue.
I'm sure these aren't your motives but her property has caused our syndicate to spend a huge amount of money chasing a chimera. I with my 14 neighbours are not too fond of this peculiarly French farce though I like her very much. I don't take too much interest in the running of the building but i would be very interested to know in whose interest this system if it isn't just a tax dodge for those who want to keep their identities secret from the tax authorities
That’s precisely the issue. It’s that French hinterland between tax avoidance and evasion. Well actually no, as far as I can see it’s straight up evasion and secrecy.
If you hold property in an SCI and operate properly and transparently then there is no tax advantage - it’s treated as transparent if small so you’re taxed as an individual, or as a corporate if a fully fledged trading business. But French people have been using them to evade tax behind a wall of secrecy. That’s what the recent reforms have targeted.
For people like me who set one up for completely different reasons and have zero intention of hiding anything from the authorities it’s an utter pain.
Without boring you or being too indiscreet she and her actor husband split up and the property was bought by an SCI thought to be her wealthy Irish father. She continued to live there and bailiffs have even been round with cameras to establish who if anyone is living there though no one seems to know why because even if they knew it would serve no purpose
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
Parson's on Endell Street is pretty good.
I'll investigate. Actually 'the summerhouse' near me (W9) isn't too bad either.
OK can we all have a quiet, prayerful moment as I sit down and.... do my taxes
Who the FUCK called this "the festive season"?
You've had since April to do that.
And I finished mine at 10am on April 6th - I'm still waiting for the £4,500 HMRC owe me but thankfully I'm in no rush for it.
Who on earth does their taxes before they have to?
"Payment on account" says hello.
It's not just payment on account. This year, for some inexplicable reason, HMRC have decided to entirely change their system so I have to do two years in one go, with accompanying tax. So it's all gonna take twice as long and be twice as expensive. I'm still trying to work out what I gain from this
For a variety of reasons I've faced a (for me) huge tax charge this year, c.£45,000. That hurts.
It's nice being retired. All my pension providers tell the Revenue what they are paying me, so everything's taxed at source. I've got one exceptional payment, where I audit the accounts for a small local charity. HMRC know, and they aren't bothered.
Good evening
I am the same , though I underpaid tax last year by 20p and as they do not take cash I paid it with my debit card and received a formal receipt !!!!!!
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
Parson's on Endell Street is pretty good.
I'll investigate. Actually 'the summerhouse' near me (W9) isn't too bad either.
Just nothing really great.
Parson's is good value, and has good to excellent fish. Unfortunately, 60% of its seats are outside, so it's not a great place to eat in winter (despite heaters). And inside is incredibly crowded.
It's five minutes walk from my apartments, so I do tend to eat there a lot.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
None of the traditional British seafood restaurants are anything like as good as they once were. Sheekey's, Wheeler's, Sweetings, and there's another with a couple of branches whose name escapes me. Rudland and Stubbs I liked, and there were great places on Long Acre, and also just off Haymarket. All gone.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
Sexy Fish is very good restaurant.
As I learned the hard way, never google Sexy Fish as you get 'interesting' search results and targeted adverts for months.
I haven't been, but it's a bit of an Asian twist. There are of course wonderful sushi restaurants in London, many good Asian places for fish as well. The traditional European style fish restaurant is what is missing.
It’s a gap in London, I agree. Fish restaurants are either hugely expensive or glorified fish and chip shops. There are some very good ones in Kent though.
One place that does exceedingly good fish: Senegal. It’s everywhere. I worked out all the meals I had while there and they went beef, fish, fish, fish, fish, fish, fish, kudu, fish, chicken, fish, chicken, fish, fish.
Going to load up a recipe for Yassa sauce and slather it over some bream or monkfish with rice.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
You'd be entitled to a little discretion from Sheekey if they are charging £79 for a dozen oysters
Exactement. What a fucking rip-off
I had superb oysters in Vancouver for a third the price, and Vancouver is not cheap
I think part of the reason for expensive oysters is the fear of home preparation: the sharp knives and danger of stabbing. Once over that they’re pretty good options to have at home. Cluny market just before Christmas or new year: huge boxes of Breton oysters, at least a couple of kilos, for a few Euros. Plus cheap as chips lemon, vinegar, shallots and some very reasonably priced muscadet.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
That is spooky, I was compiling a list of restaurants JohnO and I might frequent at our next PB Tory summit and J Sheekey was on the list.
Sheekeys is now insanely expensive. And the oysters have not got any better. It's still fun but not worth the mad dosh unless you are really celebrating
OK can we all have a quiet, prayerful moment as I sit down and.... do my taxes
Who the FUCK called this "the festive season"?
If there was a sympathy button ….
If we’re talking tax sympathy, welcome to my current tax dilemma.
Years ago when we bought our French property, jointly with my parents, we did so through a type of property owning company called a Societe Civile Immobilier (SCI). Back then SCIs were the best means of bypassing the notorious Napoleonic succession laws that mean all property must be divided equally between offspring in the event of death.
The tax effect in those days was neutral: you were taxed on any income or capital gains from the property as if you owned it directly.
Now we’re about to start letting it out as a holiday home. In the meantime HMRC have decided that SCIs are a corporation subject to CT, rather than transparent. And ours would probably be considered UK resident. So letting income would be taxed as CT here, and as income tax in France. You can’t credit one against the other as they’re under different systems. So you pay double taxation, on a different profit basis, and quite possibly at an effective rate of more than 100%.
How about getting rid of the SCI then? Well it turns out certain naughty French people were using them to hold property offshore and save tax so as well as closing the loophole and tightening up the tax rules on SCI income, the French fisc introduced an exit charge on disposal of property out of an SCI or winding up of the company, amounting to upwards of 5% of the market value.
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
You'd be entitled to a little discretion from Sheekey if they are charging £79 for a dozen oysters
Exactement. What a fucking rip-off
I had superb oysters in Vancouver for a third the price, and Vancouver is not cheap
I think part of the reason for expensive oysters is the fear of home preparation: the sharp knives and danger of stabbing. Once over that they’re pretty good options to have at home. Cluny market just before Christmas or new year: huge boxes of Breton oysters, at least a couple of kilos, for a few Euros. Plus cheap as chips lemon, vinegar, shallots and some very reasonably priced muscadet.
The price of oysters in London is, in general, ridiculous
In Cornwall you can easily get them for £1-2 a pop. Yummy
No sandwiches for Kemi's mentor, interviewer and Spectator boss Michael Gove.
You'd be entitled to a little discretion from Sheekey if they are charging £79 for a dozen oysters
Exactement. What a fucking rip-off
I had superb oysters in Vancouver for a third the price, and Vancouver is not cheap
I think part of the reason for expensive oysters is the fear of home preparation: the sharp knives and danger of stabbing. Once over that they’re pretty good options to have at home. Cluny market just before Christmas or new year: huge boxes of Breton oysters, at least a couple of kilos, for a few Euros. Plus cheap as chips lemon, vinegar, shallots and some very reasonably priced muscadet.
The price of oysters in London is, in general, ridiculous
In Cornwall you can easily get them for £1-2 a pop. Yummy
I'm not suggesting that you or others should eat them, but tinned oysters are very cheap. Steak pie fare.
That’s the future, right there. Self driving cars have arrived
When they make it to rural areas it's going to have a massive impact on rural pubs and restaurants.
Having a stand-off with tractor in front and a couple of vehicles behind on a narrow Devon lane will be about the last thing they ever master.
If they ever do.
I've come across more than one human driver who has struggled with less taxing scenarios on country lanes. And once the computer has fixed it, they will stay fixed, whereas there's always a new twerp to come across who hasn't used reverse gear since their driving test.
Bearing in mind that there's not much difference to a computer between forwards and reverse, they'll probably end up finding it easier than humans before too long. Give it a few years and people will be chuckling to each other, "Remember before self-driving cars? Imagine Dave from accounts trying to do this?!?"
If you look at TwiX, it’s full of people saying “OMG Waymos are brilliant, why did I never realise before”
Just two examples:
“I’m in a self-driving Waymo and it feels like the future. Haven’t felt this way in a long time.”
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
Thats not true. They had a 500k target for overseas students. They were recruiting heavily for NHS and care which they run and/or fund. And they chose a liberal approach to Ukraine and Hong Kong aware of the likely numbers.
Anyone can add those up and get to around a million, even an Oxford classics man.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
With the exception of Mrs. T., every Conservative government lets its supporters down.
Apart from the awful Osborne I thought that the coalition was ok.
For many leaders there was of course a tricky background. Only Boris the Clown truly messed up. Well, that's not true of course in that I've forgotten Truss - long may we forget her.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
That’s the future, right there. Self driving cars have arrived
When they make it to rural areas it's going to have a massive impact on rural pubs and restaurants.
They are going to be brilliant for those guys
There will be so many they will be cheap and ubiquitous and everyone in the world will eventually abandon their own cars, apart from @BartholomewRoberts
For those who want a taxi, this is an improvement, but taxis are already available.
We drive cars rather than take taxis not because the technology for taxis is missing, but because having our own vehicle is superior for many reasons.
Ghosted by ChatGPT: How I was first defamed and then deleted by AI
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5039749-chatgpt-ghosted-turley/ It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other publications. For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT are met with an immediate error warning. It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI. Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others. The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question. ..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 5h As those who celebrate Christmas mark the season by watching the movie Die Hard, I wonder: Isn’t Die Hard also a Hanukkah movie, celebrating a small and brave band fighting for freedom against overwhelming odds? There’s one obvious indication: John McClane = JM= Judah Maccabee.🤷♂️
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
Ghosted by ChatGPT: How I was first defamed and then deleted by AI
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5039749-chatgpt-ghosted-turley/ It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other publications. For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT are met with an immediate error warning. It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI. Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others. The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question. ..
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
In a funny way, depoliticising it would make it easier. If the ethos was just to get the job done, then this kind of pragmatic u-turn could be made without any political loss of face.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
With the exception of Mrs. T., every Conservative government lets its supporters down.
I think the Conservative governments of the 1930s and 1950s would have been approved of by their supporters.
You don't think Mr Peace In Our Time let his supporters down?
Chamberlain was a successful Mayor of Birmingham, Health Minister and Chancellor.
He was not a good wartime leader, perhaps not helped by him dying of cancer at the time.
His reputation is ruined by the Munich agreement - which though was widely popular at the time.
And his domestic polices would not have let Conservative supporters down.
Munich was widely popular at the time, yes, but it rapidly let down his supporters and the rest of the country.
That's the problem - lots of decisions that politicians make are widely popular, which can often be why they're made, but they're the wrong thing to do so end up letting down your supporters and others.
Good leadership requires sometimes taking unpopular choices that are the right thing in order to allow more popular choices to be made while keeping balance overall.
OK can we all have a quiet, prayerful moment as I sit down and.... do my taxes
Who the FUCK called this "the festive season"?
If there was a sympathy button ….
If we’re talking tax sympathy, welcome to my current tax dilemma.
Years ago when we bought our French property, jointly with my parents, we did so through a type of property owning company called a Societe Civile Immobilier (SCI). Back then SCIs were the best means of bypassing the notorious Napoleonic succession laws that mean all property must be divided equally between offspring in the event of death.
The tax effect in those days was neutral: you were taxed on any income or capital gains from the property as if you owned it directly.
Now we’re about to start letting it out as a holiday home. In the meantime HMRC have decided that SCIs are a corporation subject to CT, rather than transparent. And ours would probably be considered UK resident. So letting income would be taxed as CT here, and as income tax in France. You can’t credit one against the other as they’re under different systems. So you pay double taxation, on a different profit basis, and quite possibly at an effective rate of more than 100%.
How about getting rid of the SCI then? Well it turns out certain naughty French people were using them to hold property offshore and save tax so as well as closing the loophole and tightening up the tax rules on SCI income, the French fisc introduced an exit charge on disposal of property out of an SCI or winding up of the company, amounting to upwards of 5% of the market value.
Bugger.
Why do you not love your offspring equally?
You misread.
I bought the house jointly with my parents. Their plan was to gift their half of it to me in their will. They’d given a Spanish property of an almost identical value to my sister. They are scrupulously even handed. This was about my parents’ inheritance not mine.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
I don't think that's the whole story. Lots of right-wing think tanks across the Anglosphere were pushing our pro-migration propaganda for years, and the British ones thought that Brexit was a chance to put opposition to immigration to bed and use our "control" to supercharge it. There may have been administrative blunders but it was an ideological mistake at its core.
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
I recall some ructions here, on PB, when I recounted how a hedge fund owner hired such an outfit to patrol his local village. Apparently it was horrible.
The local police spent a great deal of effort harassing the private security, in that case. To which the hedge fund guy apparently commented that at least it got the police back to the village.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
With the exception of Mrs. T., every Conservative government lets its supporters down.
I think the Conservative governments of the 1930s and 1950s would have been approved of by their supporters.
You don't think Mr Peace In Our Time let his supporters down?
Chamberlain was a successful Mayor of Birmingham, Health Minister and Chancellor.
He was not a good wartime leader, perhaps not helped by him dying of cancer at the time.
His reputation is ruined by the Munich agreement - which though was widely popular at the time.
And his domestic polices would not have let Conservative supporters down.
Munich was widely popular at the time, yes, but it rapidly let down his supporters and the rest of the country.
That's the problem - lots of decisions that politicians make are widely popular, which can often be why they're made, but they're the wrong thing to do so end up letting down your supporters and others.
Good leadership requires sometimes taking unpopular choices that are the right thing in order to allow more popular choices to be made while keeping balance overall.
Chamberlain wanted to keep removing the last ravages of the depression and improve social security. Health was one of the things he wanted to look at….
He was an intensely moral character who hated the waste of war with a passion.
The tragedy for all concerned was he was faced with a very unusual circumstance - where war was the better option.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
I agree that, generally, continuous improvement in small increments is the safest and best strategy. But sometimes a system is so compromised and weighed down with seaweed and barnacles that it needs a big radical change. cf. Copernicus
Radical disruptive change meets a lot of resistance from vested interests in the old system. It needs not only a new framework and technology, and compelling change management, but it needs a charismatic energetic disruptive leader of the revolution. That isn't Kier Starmer.
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
Not to mention effectively outsourcing the granting of visas to private companies. Who have been caught selling them to applicants…
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
One of the most memorable school lessons of my life. Upper sixth, general studies. Monet paired with Debussy, followed by Stravinsky and Matisse’s dance of the young girls. All suddenly made sense. You could reach back and immediately get it: to Reubens and Purcell, Gainsborough and Haydn, Da Vinci and Palestrina. And the poetry and domestic architecture of each period.
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
They also have the headlines in their sights. No bad headlines - steady as she goes.
The worst headline they probably got during the initial New Labour immigration wave was broadsheet columnists fretting about the imperfect English of their new nanny.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
One of the most memorable school lessons of my life. Upper sixth, general studies. Monet paired with Debussy, followed by Stravinsky and Matisse’s dance of the young girls. All suddenly made sense. You could reach back and immediately get it: to Reubens and Purcell, Gainsborough and Haydn, Da Vinci and Palestrina. And the poetry and domestic architecture of each period.
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
Nothing like that in the Science VIth of the school I attended. Nearest I got to art then was an accurate representation of the nerves of a dogfish. Shame.
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
Good luck in your quest.
Perhaps you should let him speak for himself?
I’m not aware of anyone having censored the chap to date.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
With the exception of Mrs. T., every Conservative government lets its supporters down.
Apart from the awful Osborne I thought that the coalition was ok.
For many leaders there was of course a tricky background. Only Boris the Clown truly messed up. Well, that's not true of course in that I've forgotten Truss - long may we forget her.
Just wait until she announced her deflection to Re-firm!
Then you'll remember how amazing she was at... the things. No-one could stand in parliament and exclaim "Growth!" and wait for non-appearing applause with quite the certainty and vacant eyes as she managed.
Ghosted by ChatGPT: How I was first defamed and then deleted by AI
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5039749-chatgpt-ghosted-turley/ It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other publications. For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT are met with an immediate error warning. It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI. Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others. The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question. ..
And you believe him over ChatGPT?
Well, indeed. ...There is no reason to see these exclusions or erasures as some dark corporate conspiracy or robot retaliation. It seems to be a default position when the system commits egregious, potentially expensive errors — which might be even more disturbing. It raises the prospect of algorithms sending people into the Internet abyss with little recourse or response. You are simply ghosted because the system made a mistake, and your name is now triggering for the system. This is all well short of Hal 9000 saying “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” in an AI homicidal rage. Thus far, this is a small haunt of digital ghosts. However, it is an example of the largely unchecked power of these systems and the relatively uncharted waters ahead...
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
With the exception of Mrs. T., every Conservative government lets its supporters down.
I think the Conservative governments of the 1930s and 1950s would have been approved of by their supporters.
You don't think Mr Peace In Our Time let his supporters down?
Chamberlain was a successful Mayor of Birmingham, Health Minister and Chancellor.
He was not a good wartime leader, perhaps not helped by him dying of cancer at the time.
His reputation is ruined by the Munich agreement - which though was widely popular at the time.
And his domestic polices would not have let Conservative supporters down.
Munich was widely popular at the time, yes, but it rapidly let down his supporters and the rest of the country.
That's the problem - lots of decisions that politicians make are widely popular, which can often be why they're made, but they're the wrong thing to do so end up letting down your supporters and others.
Good leadership requires sometimes taking unpopular choices that are the right thing in order to allow more popular choices to be made while keeping balance overall.
Chamberlain wanted to keep removing the last ravages of the depression and improve social security. Health was one of the things he wanted to look at….
He was an intensely moral character who hated the waste of war with a passion.
The tragedy for all concerned was he was faced with a very unusual circumstance - where war was the better option.
Chamberlain knew that war was coming, but like Stalin in 1941, he thought it was further off than was the case. At least he ramped up defence spending.
Baldwin, OTOH, was an idiot, who thought that war could be avoided by sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying “it’s not happening.”
Hitler should never have won, in 1940. But, he was facing opponents, Gamelin, Weygand, Gort, who were sublimely unfit to do anything other than dig latrines.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
One of the most memorable school lessons of my life. Upper sixth, general studies. Monet paired with Debussy, followed by Stravinsky and Matisse’s dance of the young girls. All suddenly made sense. You could reach back and immediately get it: to Reubens and Purcell, Gainsborough and Haydn, Da Vinci and Palestrina. And the poetry and domestic architecture of each period.
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
Nothing like that in the Science VIth of the school I attended. Nearest I got to art then was an accurate representation of the nerves of a dogfish. Shame.
General studies is brilliant. If only it were a properly rated academic A-Level.
Won’t someone think of the poor pub quiz champs? Like my 17 year old son. Mixed at best at exams, yet imbued with an intellectualism his A* friends don’t have.
He’s just come back from an afternoon with friends in Marylebone where he went unprompted into Daunt’s and came away with a book about Pinochet. Give him a decade and he’ll be here posting on PB.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
One of the most memorable school lessons of my life. Upper sixth, general studies. Monet paired with Debussy, followed by Stravinsky and Matisse’s dance of the young girls. All suddenly made sense. You could reach back and immediately get it: to Reubens and Purcell, Gainsborough and Haydn, Da Vinci and Palestrina. And the poetry and domestic architecture of each period.
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
Stravinsky lived in Villefranche in the good old days when when the Russians were welcome!
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
I don't think that's the whole story. Lots of right-wing think tanks across the Anglosphere were pushing our pro-migration propaganda for years, and the British ones thought that Brexit was a chance to put opposition to immigration to bed and use our "control" to supercharge it. There may have been administrative blunders but it was an ideological mistake at its core.
Indeed, I always thought that was the point of Brexit in the eyes of most of its proponents (apart from Farage): to replace all those troublesome European immigrants who expected things like minimum employment standards and a decent wage, with people from elsewhere in the world, who were just glad to be here, and did not.
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
Good luck in your quest.
Um. No. I'm simply acknowledging the politics I see in front of me.
I believe in low taxes, a small state, capitalism and personal responsibility.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
One of the most memorable school lessons of my life. Upper sixth, general studies. Monet paired with Debussy, followed by Stravinsky and Matisse’s dance of the young girls. All suddenly made sense. You could reach back and immediately get it: to Reubens and Purcell, Gainsborough and Haydn, Da Vinci and Palestrina. And the poetry and domestic architecture of each period.
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
Stravinsky lived in Villefranche in the good old days when when the Russians were welcome!
Which implies the two may have met. Matisse lived his middle and later years in Nice.
Ghosted by ChatGPT: How I was first defamed and then deleted by AI
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5039749-chatgpt-ghosted-turley/ It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other publications. For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT are met with an immediate error warning. It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI. Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others. The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question. ..
And you believe him over ChatGPT?
Well, indeed. ...There is no reason to see these exclusions or erasures as some dark corporate conspiracy or robot retaliation. It seems to be a default position when the system commits egregious, potentially expensive errors — which might be even more disturbing. It raises the prospect of algorithms sending people into the Internet abyss with little recourse or response. You are simply ghosted because the system made a mistake, and your name is now triggering for the system. This is all well short of Hal 9000 saying “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” in an AI homicidal rage. Thus far, this is a small haunt of digital ghosts. However, it is an example of the largely unchecked power of these systems and the relatively uncharted waters ahead...
I don't think this is new to GPT. From Kafka, to Asimov's Multivac, to Gilliam's Brazil's Tuttle, to google search, to...
I've personally erased a fair few people from credit systems when I was a temp for a credit reference company (quite a big one). I had no idea at the time what it meant. Just 'Press F5 a lot and you can knock off early'. Probably didn't cause them any problems in life. Probably?
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
One of the most memorable school lessons of my life. Upper sixth, general studies. Monet paired with Debussy, followed by Stravinsky and Matisse’s dance of the young girls. All suddenly made sense. You could reach back and immediately get it: to Reubens and Purcell, Gainsborough and Haydn, Da Vinci and Palestrina. And the poetry and domestic architecture of each period.
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
Nothing like that in the Science VIth of the school I attended. Nearest I got to art then was an accurate representation of the nerves of a dogfish. Shame.
I loved General Studies. The opportunity to think differently.
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
Good luck in your quest.
Um. No. I'm simply acknowledging the politics I see in front of me.
I believe in low taxes, a small state, capitalism and personal responsibility.
Reform do not.
I think Reform believe in low taxes, a small state and capitalism too. They’re not so keen on personal responsibility. But they pretend to believe in a strong state because that appeals to their target audience.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
With the exception of Mrs. T., every Conservative government lets its supporters down.
I think the Conservative governments of the 1930s and 1950s would have been approved of by their supporters.
You don't think Mr Peace In Our Time let his supporters down?
Chamberlain was a successful Mayor of Birmingham, Health Minister and Chancellor.
He was not a good wartime leader, perhaps not helped by him dying of cancer at the time.
His reputation is ruined by the Munich agreement - which though was widely popular at the time.
And his domestic polices would not have let Conservative supporters down.
Munich was widely popular at the time, yes, but it rapidly let down his supporters and the rest of the country.
That's the problem - lots of decisions that politicians make are widely popular, which can often be why they're made, but they're the wrong thing to do so end up letting down your supporters and others.
Good leadership requires sometimes taking unpopular choices that are the right thing in order to allow more popular choices to be made while keeping balance overall.
Chamberlain wanted to keep removing the last ravages of the depression and improve social security. Health was one of the things he wanted to look at….
He was an intensely moral character who hated the waste of war with a passion.
The tragedy for all concerned was he was faced with a very unusual circumstance - where war was the better option.
Chamberlain knew that war was coming, but like Stalin in 1941, he thought it was further off than was the case. At least he ramped up defence spending.
Baldwin, OTOH, was an idiot, who thought that war could be avoided by sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying “it’s not happening.”
Hitler should never have won, in 1940. But, he was facing opponents, Gamelin, Weygand, Gort, who were sublimely unfit to do anything other than dig latrines.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
I agree that, generally, continuous improvement in small increments is the safest and best strategy. But sometimes a system is so compromised and weighed down with seaweed and barnacles that it needs a big radical change. cf. Copernicus
Radical disruptive change meets a lot of resistance from vested interests in the old system. It needs not only a new framework and technology, and compelling change management, but it needs a charismatic energetic disruptive leader of the revolution. That isn't Kier Starmer.
Copernicus's revolution concerns stuff which is amazing but leaves the lives of his contemporaneous peasants untouched. Sherlock Holmes astounds Watson by not knowing or caring whether the sun goes rouind the earth or vice versa.
Copernican revolutions touching everyday actuality are different. We are so affected by and formed by the post 1945 consensus - a social democratic one - that we hardly notice it is there. But it is everywhere. If in fact the necessary revolution needed in the west is a departure from that post war consensus, we are floundering. No-one in politics has a programme even thinking about it.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The safe assumption is that immigration will always be higher than predicted.
The other thing is that governments need to be flexible and to react quickly to events.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
This.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Especially in the early years.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
One of the most memorable school lessons of my life. Upper sixth, general studies. Monet paired with Debussy, followed by Stravinsky and Matisse’s dance of the young girls. All suddenly made sense. You could reach back and immediately get it: to Reubens and Purcell, Gainsborough and Haydn, Da Vinci and Palestrina. And the poetry and domestic architecture of each period.
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
Stravinsky lived in Villefranche in the good old days when when the Russians were welcome!
Which implies the two may have met. Matisse lived his middle and later years in Nice.
Its very likely. They both knew and associated with Cocteau
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
Good luck in your quest.
Um. No. I'm simply acknowledging the politics I see in front of me.
I believe in low taxes, a small state, capitalism and personal responsibility.
Reform do not.
It’s always amusing to read people pontificating about what others think/believe.
Imo Starmer will resign of his own accord around the time of the next election, as previously stated, so there is no need to oust him.
My tip for next leader - let it be duly recorded - is Johnny Reynolds.
Bridget will get close but JR will pip her to the post.
In "Taken as Red", author Anushka Asthana says that Tribune Group chair Clive Efford believes that Miatta Fahnbulleh MP is impressive and a possible future leader.
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
Here's the thing: the Boris Johnson government did not expect net immigration of one million people in a year. That was not their goal.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
The big increase in immigration was the one economic positive of Brexit. More immigration has no political logic in the Brexit context but it's an economic lever governments can pull when they gave away others with Brexit.
I think that Farage’s popularity is majorly underrated among commentators here. Again, it’s a case of “I don’t like the populist right, therefore the populist right can’t win.”
You'd have thought that lesson would have been learned by now, but from reading the comments on here today it obviously hasn't.
You have, it’s clear, embarked on “the journey”. From Tory to Reform. It’s like the path of the Christian convert from CofE to the one true faith. For many, inevitable. Like my mother in law, God bless ‘er.
Good luck in your quest.
Perhaps you should let him speak for himself?
I’m not aware of anyone having censored the chap to date.
I am not surprised at your mother in law's political journey - as people get older they become less tolerant of bullshit as a rule.
There is very little point in the polite right. Over the past 14 years it politely allowed the country to become a dysfunctional state with a neutered press, a vast and increasingly useless administrative class, out of control migration, a culture dominated by anti-British sectionalism, and a green policy that's busily destroying what's left of the economy whilst other countries dig hundreds of coal mines to make the things we used to make. What's the point of voting for that over the full caffeine version? So Nigel B and Stuart in Romford don't get upset (other PB centrist Dads are available)?
Comments
No doubt the 'good kind' of foreign interference.
In fact I really struggle to think of a great fish place in London now.
As I learned the hard way, never google Sexy Fish as you get 'interesting' search results and targeted adverts for months.
https://sexyfish.com/
If you want that kind of fancy "fusion", go to Nobu or Roka. If you want to hang out with overpriced hookers, go to Sexy Fish.
Seafoodwise:
Bentleys is great in Mayfair
Randall & Aubin is jolly nice in Soho
Writh Bros in Borough can be fun
Just nothing really great.
I have a 14 year old son. He has an iPhone.
For reasons I don't understand, my face unlocks his phone. Not every time, but -say- 6 out of 10 times.
I don't snoop on his messages or anything. But I find it amusing that I can access his phone.
Should I tell him?
I had superb oysters in Vancouver for a third the price, and Vancouver is not cheap
I am the same , though I underpaid tax last year by 20p and as they do not take cash I paid it with my debit card and received a formal receipt !!!!!!
If so, go for it.
It's five minutes walk from my apartments, so I do tend to eat there a lot.
(Shit: Jay Rayner likes it - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/04/parsons-london-food-you-cant-forget-restaurant-review-jay-rayner)
"I have a very simple and just suggestion for solving the housing crisis. All those who have supported the recent policy of uncontrolled mass immigration should have a new house built in their back garden – or on top of their existing house if there is no room in the garden. This will also apply to their second homes."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14192629/PETER-HITCHENS-Heres-need-people-supported-mass-immigration-need-pay-terrible-consequences-themselves.html
https://archive.is/CDola#selection-1273.0-1281.44
One place that does exceedingly good fish: Senegal. It’s everywhere. I worked out all the meals I had while there and they went beef, fish, fish, fish, fish, fish, fish, kudu, fish, chicken, fish, chicken, fish, fish.
Going to load up a recipe for Yassa sauce and slather it over some bream or monkfish with rice.
They were just dumb, and couldn't do their sums. (Like Labour with the impact of Eastern European accession to the EU.)
Weird, I thought. Maybe he doesn't lock his phone.
I hand it to my wife.
It stays locked.
I take it... it doesn't unlock. I click the screen on and off and... oh... it's unlocked again.
The funny bit is that I don't look anything like my son. But clearly Apple's machine learning algorithms think we're the same person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPCgZComR90
My suggestion: Veeraswamy (for their fixed price, if you are Thatcherites).
That may be the reason. I share an apple ID with my son, and I set up face unlock on my iPad. So I wonder if it's merged the two face models.
In Cornwall you can easily get them for £1-2 a pop. Yummy
He's certainly not short of policies! 🤨
https://x.com/real_lord_miles/status/1867843072849015253
Anyone can add those up and get to around a million, even an Oxford classics man.
For many leaders there was of course a tricky background. Only Boris the Clown truly messed up. Well, that's not true of course in that I've forgotten Truss - long may we forget her.
We drive cars rather than take taxis not because the technology for taxis is missing, but because having our own vehicle is superior for many reasons.
Ghosted by ChatGPT: How I was first defamed and then deleted by AI
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5039749-chatgpt-ghosted-turley/
It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other publications.
For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT are met with an immediate error warning.
It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI.
Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others.
The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question.
..
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
5h
As those who celebrate Christmas mark the season by watching the movie Die Hard, I wonder: Isn’t Die Hard also a Hanukkah movie, celebrating a small and brave band fighting for freedom against overwhelming odds? There’s one obvious indication: John McClane = JM= Judah Maccabee.🤷♂️
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1867927636732964957
The middle classes have lost faith in the Met
Fred Skulthorp"
https://unherd.com/2024/12/the-private-police-patrolling-london/
I'm not sure he was interested in much else, aside the coronation.
Let's say they expected 10,000 people per month to successfully apply for an [x] visa. If - after two months - it's looking like they underestimated numbers by an order of magnitude, then instead of not doing anything for (say) two years, they need to move quickly and to alter the rules.
Generally - in business, politics, and life - lots of small movements work better than occasionally big movements. (And it's true of driving too.)
Unfortunately, our political leaders have seemed to act like a deer stuck in the headlights, and failed to react to events in a timely way.
People need to be willing to say "this isn't working, lets change things".
But politicians, in particular, seem terrified of anything which might be an admission of failure or, even worse, a U turn.
I wonder if anyone has made a serious study of the effect on politics of Thatcher's "U turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning" speech.
The irony being that Thatcher was willing to make policy changes when she thought it right.
Being totally cynical, hence the need for the speech she gave in 1980. The more you adjust course, the more you have to claim firmity of purpose. See the "Elgar = radical reform, Stravinsky = no change" rule.
He was not a good wartime leader, perhaps not helped by him dying of cancer at the time.
His reputation is ruined by the Munich agreement - which though was widely popular at the time.
And his domestic polices would not have let Conservative supporters down.
That's the problem - lots of decisions that politicians make are widely popular, which can often be why they're made, but they're the wrong thing to do so end up letting down your supporters and others.
Good leadership requires sometimes taking unpopular choices that are the right thing in order to allow more popular choices to be made while keeping balance overall.
I bought the house jointly with my parents. Their plan was to gift their half of it to me in their will. They’d given a Spanish property of an almost identical value to my sister. They are scrupulously even handed. This was about my parents’ inheritance not mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHCu-m_-9Z0
Good luck in your quest.
The local police spent a great deal of effort harassing the private security, in that case. To which the hedge fund guy apparently commented that at least it got the police back to the village.
He was an intensely moral character who hated the waste of war with a passion.
The tragedy for all concerned was he was faced with a very unusual circumstance - where war was the better option.
Radical disruptive change meets a lot of resistance from vested interests in the old system. It needs not only a new framework and technology, and compelling change management, but it needs a charismatic energetic disruptive leader of the revolution.
That isn't Kier Starmer.
https://youtu.be/SMBo3qAyELQ?si=4db7mlO3E_tKwLEI
Stravinsky heralded the brutal, modernist machine-killing age.
The worst headline they probably got during the initial New Labour immigration wave was broadsheet columnists fretting about the imperfect English of their new nanny.
Shame.
Then you'll remember how amazing she was at... the things. No-one could stand in parliament and exclaim "Growth!" and wait for non-appearing applause with quite the certainty and vacant eyes as she managed.
...There is no reason to see these exclusions or erasures as some dark corporate conspiracy or robot retaliation. It seems to be a default position when the system commits egregious, potentially expensive errors — which might be even more disturbing. It raises the prospect of algorithms sending people into the Internet abyss with little recourse or response. You are simply ghosted because the system made a mistake, and your name is now triggering for the system.
This is all well short of Hal 9000 saying “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” in an AI homicidal rage. Thus far, this is a small haunt of digital ghosts. However, it is an example of the largely unchecked power of these systems and the relatively uncharted waters ahead...
Baldwin, OTOH, was an idiot, who thought that war could be avoided by sticking your fingers in your ears, and saying “it’s not happening.”
Hitler should never have won, in 1940. But, he was facing opponents, Gamelin, Weygand, Gort, who were sublimely unfit to do anything other than dig latrines.
Won’t someone think of the poor pub quiz champs? Like my 17 year old son. Mixed at best at exams, yet imbued with an intellectualism his A* friends don’t have.
He’s just come back from an afternoon with friends in Marylebone where he went unprompted into Daunt’s and came away with a book about Pinochet. Give him a decade and he’ll be here posting on PB.
Bridget will get close but JR will pip her to the post.
I believe in low taxes, a small state, capitalism and personal responsibility.
Reform do not.
I've personally erased a fair few people from credit systems when I was a temp for a credit reference company (quite a big one). I had no idea at the time what it meant. Just 'Press F5 a lot and you can knock off early'. Probably didn't cause them any problems in life. Probably?
Copernican revolutions touching everyday actuality are different. We are so affected by and formed by the post 1945 consensus - a social democratic one - that we hardly notice it is there. But it is everywhere. If in fact the necessary revolution needed in the west is a departure from that post war consensus, we are floundering. No-one in politics has a programme even thinking about it.
There is very little point in the polite right. Over the past 14 years it politely allowed the country to become a dysfunctional state with a neutered press, a vast and increasingly useless administrative class, out of control migration, a culture dominated by anti-British sectionalism, and a green policy that's busily destroying what's left of the economy whilst other countries dig hundreds of coal mines to make the things we used to make. What's the point of voting for that over the full caffeine version? So Nigel B and Stuart in Romford don't get upset (other PB centrist Dads are available)?