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.
Has any PM willingly stepped down during their first term?
Boris Johnson did last term.
Sure his hand was somewhat forced in practice, but in theory he'd survived the VONC so was safe for a year no matter how many resigned so he had to voluntarily step down in the end.
"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.
Also the only time at senior school when I learned anything that was of any use to me subsequently in life. 7 years otherwise mostly wasted on learning stuff that was either boring or of no practical use and often both.
(Actually I'm being unfair on French, ironically the weakest of my A-levels, which I have used in adult life).
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?
Of course it's not. But AI is about to become a great deal more pervasive, quite rapidly, and likely without the same developed structure of control and legal accountability.
The story is about a relatively trivial incident, but it's not massively hard to imagine a more consequential set of events.
"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.
Also the only time at senior school when I learned anything that was of any use to me subsequently in life. 7 years otherwise mostly wasted on learning stuff that was either boring or of no practical use and often both.
(Actually I'm being unfair on French, ironically the weakest of my A-levels, which I have used in adult life).
I never understood the point. probably because it wasn't something done well at my 6th form (also why I got a U)
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.
Has any PM willingly stepped down during their first term?
Boris Johnson did last term.
Sure his hand was somewhat forced in practice, but in theory he'd survived the VONC so was safe for a year no matter how many resigned so he had to voluntarily step down in the end.
You could say the same of Truss and May. Indeed, I think IDS was the only modern Conservative leader to leave by a VONC under the published rules. If a leader loses confidence, the rules suddenly don't really matter much.
If Starmer ends up.acting differently, it will be because of the ways he is different (older, second career, not really a politician).
Though if Labour are going to pull the old switcheroo on us, he and Reeves will stick around for a while yet. There's still a lot of toxic waste for this government to absorb (thanks largely to the last lot), and the best strategy for Newguyorgal will be for the old team to clear as much of it as possible.
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)?
More precisely my mother in law’s journey has been more in line with the religious analogy I offered up: from happy clappy CofE to absolute full fat, latin mass, anti Vatican 2 Roman Catholic. Like one of Father Ted’s more eccentric parishioners.
She is also Reform. But has been with them and their UKIP antecedents since before Brexit.
You’d think with all that holiness coursing through her veins she’d have a strong sense of morality, but not when it comes to a certain close family member and his “propensity”.
"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.
Also the only time at senior school when I learned anything that was of any use to me subsequently in life. 7 years otherwise mostly wasted on learning stuff that was either boring or of no practical use and often both.
(Actually I'm being unfair on French, ironically the weakest of my A-levels, which I have used in adult life).
I never understood the point. probably because it wasn't something done well at my 6th form (also why I got a U)
Well, you get a qualification. But not in something you can really teach, except at the margins. Some of our general studies lessons were just enjoyable discussions in the sorts of things you might benefut from being vaguely aware of for the exam - art, music, architecture, sculpture, etc. Highly worthwhile for its own sake. But there were also opportunities to do little modules in slightly offbeat subjects. I was in a "maths puzzles and games" group - we all thought it would be shit, but it was enjoyed universally - we did gane theory, the goat problem, we learned bridge, dabbled in probability problems... It was brilliant. Its impact on our overall scores in the exam was probavly marginal, but it left 20-odd people considerably richer intellectually than might otherwise have been the case.
"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.
UK rearmament started in 1932.
Baldwin didn’t think he could win the argument about re-armament politically. Many believed that total pacifism would win over the country.
Re-armament was in the form of setting up factories and giving money to the steel companies to rebuild the armour plate making setups. The idea was to wait until nearer the war to start producing the actual aircraft and tanks required. Technology was making both obsolete by the year.
Ships were different (longer lead times) and were being built to the capacity of the industry.
So the U.K. appeared to be falling behind Germany - which exaggerated what they were building, as well.
The actual plan was to switch funding to mass production in 1940-41 - 5,000 Standard Bombers, 400mph cannon armed fighters, 17lbr anti tank gun as standard etc etc. all to be ready in early 1942, which was the German target for peak armament.
But Hitler started the war 3 years early. And got very lucky - many of the panzers in 1939 were tin cans, for example.
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)?
More precisely my mother in law’s journey has been more in line with the religious analogy I offered up: from happy clappy CofE to absolute full fat, latin mass, anti Vatican 2 Roman Catholic. Like one of Father Ted’s more eccentric parishioners.
She is also Reform. But has been with them and their UKIP antecedents since before Brexit.
You’d think with all that holiness coursing through her veins she’d have a strong sense of morality, but not when it comes to a certain close family member and his “propensity”.
Same as Ann Widdecombe. Maybe didn't hold with women vicars?
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)?
More precisely my mother in law’s journey has been more in line with the religious analogy I offered up: from happy clappy CofE to absolute full fat, latin mass, anti Vatican 2 Roman Catholic. Like one of Father Ted’s more eccentric parishioners.
She is also Reform. But has been with them and their UKIP antecedents since before Brexit.
You’d think with all that holiness coursing through her veins she’d have a strong sense of morality, but not when it comes to a certain close family member and his “propensity”.
Oh and when my wife had her first art exhibition in the first year of university the mother in law counselled her to “kneel and ask forgiveness from our lady for the sin you have surrounded yourself with”.
She also doesn’t believe in climate change, along with evolution and all of those other centrist dad fads.
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)?
More precisely my mother in law’s journey has been more in line with the religious analogy I offered up: from happy clappy CofE to absolute full fat, latin mass, anti Vatican 2 Roman Catholic. Like one of Father Ted’s more eccentric parishioners.
She is also Reform. But has been with them and their UKIP antecedents since before Brexit.
You’d think with all that holiness coursing through her veins she’d have a strong sense of morality, but not when it comes to a certain close family member and his “propensity”.
Same as Ann Widdecombe. Maybe didn't hold with women vicars?
She was a convert. I think converts lack the guardrails that cradle catholics have. They just keep going further down the rabbit hole.
"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.
Also the only time at senior school when I learned anything that was of any use to me subsequently in life. 7 years otherwise mostly wasted on learning stuff that was either boring or of no practical use and often both.
(Actually I'm being unfair on French, ironically the weakest of my A-levels, which I have used in adult life).
I never understood the point. probably because it wasn't something done well at my 6th form (also why I got a U)
Well, you get a qualification. But not in something you can really teach, except at the margins. Some of our general studies lessons were just enjoyable discussions in the sorts of things you might benefut from being vaguely aware of for the exam - art, music, architecture, sculpture, etc. Highly worthwhile for its own sake. But there were also opportunities to do little modules in slightly offbeat subjects. I was in a "maths puzzles and games" group - we all thought it would be shit, but it was enjoyed universally - we did gane theory, the goat problem, we learned bridge, dabbled in probability problems... It was brilliant. Its impact on our overall scores in the exam was probavly marginal, but it left 20-odd people considerably richer intellectually than might otherwise have been the case.
Exactly. Sort of economically pointless, but enriching.
There are different sorts of intelligence.
There’s smartness: savvy, the ability to get stuff, the skill to live on your wits.
There’s academic capability: the ability to absorb learning and perform well in exams and assignments.
Then there’s intellectual curiosity: just wanting to know about why the world is as it is, or people are as they are.
Anyone with any of those will be known as “bright”, but it will manifest itself in different ways. General studies appeals to the intellectually curious.
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)?
There is very little point in the Putinite right such as yourself. Over the past 14 years Putin politely allowed his country to become a dysfunctional state with a neutered press, a vast and increasingly useless administrative class, out of control deaths, a culture dominated by anti-British sectionalism, and an energy policy that's busily destroying what's left of the economy whilst other countries build millions of solar panels and thousands of wind turbines.
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.
Has any PM willingly stepped down during their first term?
If Starmer does step down, as I expect, he will already be older than any Prime Minister since Jim Callaghan. Starmer is not a natural politician; this is his second career. Starmer is not associated with any grand vision.
And since Starmer has been in Parliament, most premierships have been relatively short. He was first elected in 2015, since when Cameron lasted another year; Theresa May three years; Boris the same; Liz Truss and then Rishi about two years. So from that perspective, going early is quite normal.
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.
Has any PM willingly stepped down during their first term?
Boris Johnson did last term.
Sure his hand was somewhat forced in practice, but in theory he'd survived the VONC so was safe for a year no matter how many resigned so he had to voluntarily step down in the end.
His chancellor had resigned as were various other cabinet ministers - and it's very hard to remain if it's clear your former cabinet don't want anything to do with you.
"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.
UK rearmament started in 1932.
Baldwin didn’t think he could win the argument about re-armament politically. Many believed that total pacifism would win over the country.
Re-armament was in the form of setting up factories and giving money to the steel companies to rebuild the armour plate making setups. The idea was to wait until nearer the war to start producing the actual aircraft and tanks required. Technology was making both obsolete by the year.
Ships were different (longer lead times) and were being built to the capacity of the industry.
So the U.K. appeared to be falling behind Germany - which exaggerated what they were building, as well.
The actual plan was to switch funding to mass production in 1940-41 - 5,000 Standard Bombers, 400mph cannon armed fighters, 17lbr anti tank gun as standard etc etc. all to be ready in early 1942, which was the German target for peak armament.
But Hitler started the war 3 years early. And got very lucky - many of the panzers in 1939 were tin cans, for example.
Churchill, of course, got to write his own history postwar.
The counterfactual is that a more militaristic Conservative Party lost the '35 election, and the resulting pacifist administration caused Britain's defeat.
I think this interview does a good job of showcasing how complicated most people are, when normally we think of people in very simplified, caricatured ways.
I think this interview does a good job of showcasing how complicated most people are, when normally we think of people in very simplified, caricatured ways.
"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.
UK rearmament started in 1932.
Baldwin didn’t think he could win the argument about re-armament politically. Many believed that total pacifism would win over the country.
Re-armament was in the form of setting up factories and giving money to the steel companies to rebuild the armour plate making setups. The idea was to wait until nearer the war to start producing the actual aircraft and tanks required. Technology was making both obsolete by the year.
Ships were different (longer lead times) and were being built to the capacity of the industry.
So the U.K. appeared to be falling behind Germany - which exaggerated what they were building, as well.
The actual plan was to switch funding to mass production in 1940-41 - 5,000 Standard Bombers, 400mph cannon armed fighters, 17lbr anti tank gun as standard etc etc. all to be ready in early 1942, which was the German target for peak armament.
But Hitler started the war 3 years early. And got very lucky - many of the panzers in 1939 were tin cans, for example.
To what extent would you say that Britain has started rearmament, if at all?
"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.
UK rearmament started in 1932.
Baldwin didn’t think he could win the argument about re-armament politically. Many believed that total pacifism would win over the country.
Re-armament was in the form of setting up factories and giving money to the steel companies to rebuild the armour plate making setups. The idea was to wait until nearer the war to start producing the actual aircraft and tanks required. Technology was making both obsolete by the year.
Ships were different (longer lead times) and were being built to the capacity of the industry.
So the U.K. appeared to be falling behind Germany - which exaggerated what they were building, as well.
The actual plan was to switch funding to mass production in 1940-41 - 5,000 Standard Bombers, 400mph cannon armed fighters, 17lbr anti tank gun as standard etc etc. all to be ready in early 1942, which was the German target for peak armament.
But Hitler started the war 3 years early. And got very lucky - many of the panzers in 1939 were tin cans, for example.
To what extent would you say that Britain has started rearmament, if at all?
More importantly guardian reporting Prince Andrew might have been targeted by Chinese as a useful idiot. Which would suggest a massive increase in status for someone rightly regarded as a useless tosser at best.
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
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?
Of course it's not. But AI is about to become a great deal more pervasive, quite rapidly, and likely without the same developed structure of control and legal accountability.
The story is about a relatively trivial incident, but it's not massively hard to imagine a more consequential set of events.
Google search, credit reference agencies, facial recognition ML, etc all had the same issue 'growing up'. I'm just wary of the current 'satanic panic' about GPT/LLM's in particular. We muddle through.
I think this interview does a good job of showcasing how complicated most people are, when normally we think of people in very simplified, caricatured ways.
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Similarly with aircraft navigation light. Any bright, distant, OOF light source looks like an "orb".
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Similarly with aircraft navigation light. Any bright, distant, OOF light source looks like an "orb".
If it turns out that the whole thing is a combo of hallucination and contagion, then it will be a fascinating case for future mass psychologists
Personally I think there is *some* seed of reality here, and it's not all delusional. I am hard pushed to believe it is aliens slowly buzzing around in car sized drones with all the lights on, showing a mild obsession with New Jersey and East Anglia
Interesting story. I don't know how close to commercialisation this is, but it would potentially wipe out any steelmakers not using it.
https://interestingengineering.com/science/china-new-ironmaking-method-boosts-productivity-3600-times ...new iron making technology developed in China is set to significantly impact the global steel industry. Developed after more than 10 years of research, this method injects finely ground iron ore powder into a very hot furnace, causing an “explosive chemical reaction”, according to the engineers. The result is a continuous flow of high-purity iron that forms as bright red, glowing liquid droplets that accumulate at the base of the furnace, ready for direct casting or one-step steel-making.
The flash iron making method, as detailed by Professor Zhang Wenhai and his team in a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Nonferrous Metals last month, can complete the iron making process in just three to six seconds, compared to the five to six hours required by traditional blast furnaces. ..
...Zhang’s team has developed a vortex lance that can inject 450 tonnes of iron ore particles per hour. A reactor equipped with three such lances produces 7.11 million tonnes of iron annually. As per the paper, the lance “has already entered commercial production.”
Although the concept of applying this process to iron making originated in the US, it was Zhang’s team that developed a flash smelting technology capable of directly producing liquid iron. They obtained a patent in 2013 and spent the next decade refining the method...
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Similarly with aircraft navigation light. Any bright, distant, OOF light source looks like an "orb".
If it turns out that the whole thing is a combo of hallucination and contagion, then it will be a fascinating case for future mass psychologists
Personally I think there is *some* seed of reality here, and it's not all delusional. I am hard pushed to believe it is aliens slowly buzzing around in car sized drones with all the lights on, showing a mild obsession with New Jersey and East Anglia
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.
Has any PM willingly stepped down during their first term?
Boris Johnson did last term.
Sure his hand was somewhat forced in practice, but in theory he'd survived the VONC so was safe for a year no matter how many resigned so he had to voluntarily step down in the end.
His chancellor had resigned as were various other cabinet ministers - and it's very hard to remain if it's clear your former cabinet don't want anything to do with you.
Hard, yes, but not impossible.
The point is he stepped down during his first term, just as william asked. He stepped down as his colleagues wanted him to, but he did so either way.
Ditto if Starmer's colleagues want him out, then he might resign just as Boris had to.
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Similarly with aircraft navigation light. Any bright, distant, OOF light source looks like an "orb".
If it turns out that the whole thing is a combo of hallucination and contagion, then it will be a fascinating case for future mass psychologists
Personally I think there is *some* seed of reality here, and it's not all delusional. I am hard pushed to believe it is aliens slowly buzzing around in car sized drones with all the lights on, showing a mild obsession with New Jersey and East Anglia
There is no great mystery here.
People see shit all the time, its why people believe in bullshit like astronomy and religion and ghosts and aliens and any other crap.
And the media has a bottom-line interest in getting clickbait silly stories published to pad their revenue.
And politicians have an interest in getting votes from cranks.
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Similarly with aircraft navigation light. Any bright, distant, OOF light source looks like an "orb".
If it turns out that the whole thing is a combo of hallucination and contagion, then it will be a fascinating case for future mass psychologists
Personally I think there is *some* seed of reality here, and it's not all delusional. I am hard pushed to believe it is aliens slowly buzzing around in car sized drones with all the lights on, showing a mild obsession with New Jersey and East Anglia
There is no great mystery here.
People see shit all the time, its why people believe in bullshit like astronomy and religion and ghosts and aliens and any other crap.
And the media has a bottom-line interest in getting clickbait silly stories published to pad their revenue.
And politicians have an interest in getting votes from cranks.
There's nothing that can't be explained.
Classic typo
"its why people believe in bullshit like astronomy"
Well, the USG could end all this tomorrow by doing a proper, open investigation, sending in the USAF - or whatever - and finding out where the drones come from, what they are, and where they go. There are surely too many people witnessing *something* for this to be all misidentified planes. Or if it is that, then say so and prove it
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Perhaps they are just laughing at all the idiots? I know I would ashamed of posting a link to a reporter watching a plane and calling it a swarm of drones.
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
it could indeed be a huge flap over absolutely nothing. The madness of crowds meets social media
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Similarly with aircraft navigation light. Any bright, distant, OOF light source looks like an "orb".
If it turns out that the whole thing is a combo of hallucination and contagion, then it will be a fascinating case for future mass psychologists
Personally I think there is *some* seed of reality here, and it's not all delusional. I am hard pushed to believe it is aliens slowly buzzing around in car sized drones with all the lights on, showing a mild obsession with New Jersey and East Anglia
There is no great mystery here.
People see shit all the time, its why people believe in bullshit like astronomy and religion and ghosts and aliens and any other crap.
And the media has a bottom-line interest in getting clickbait silly stories published to pad their revenue.
And politicians have an interest in getting votes from cranks.
There's nothing that can't be explained.
Classic typo
"its why people believe in bullshit like astronomy"
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)?
More precisely my mother in law’s journey has been more in line with the religious analogy I offered up: from happy clappy CofE to absolute full fat, latin mass, anti Vatican 2 Roman Catholic. Like one of Father Ted’s more eccentric parishioners.
She is also Reform. But has been with them and their UKIP antecedents since before Brexit.
You’d think with all that holiness coursing through her veins she’d have a strong sense of morality, but not when it comes to a certain close family member and his “propensity”.
VP elect Vance is full on Latin Mass RC too, so not that surprising she is Reform
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)?
More precisely my mother in law’s journey has been more in line with the religious analogy I offered up: from happy clappy CofE to absolute full fat, latin mass, anti Vatican 2 Roman Catholic. Like one of Father Ted’s more eccentric parishioners.
She is also Reform. But has been with them and their UKIP antecedents since before Brexit.
You’d think with all that holiness coursing through her veins she’d have a strong sense of morality, but not when it comes to a certain close family member and his “propensity”.
VP elect Vance is full on Latin Mass Roman Catholic too, so not that surprising she is Reform
FPT: I won't FPT much of the previous planning convo, but this is worth a look for anyone with Saturday intellectual energy. Planning Barristers redrawing their mental maps.
This is probably for @Andy_Cooke@BatteryCorrectHorse and maybe @eek and @stodge, and others involved in Planning Committees. It is the first detailed commentary on parts of the new NPPF I have seen, and has some good points, and draws out details we have not mentioned.
The Christmas Film Die Hard gets a mention, as in “Ho! Ho! Ho! Now I have a machine gun!” *
If you are not at least a little familiar with the Local Plan process, you may come away with a modest "assaulted by planning documents" headache.
The New NPPF: A Christmas Cracker?
The updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), released today (12 December 2024), promises significant changes to housing delivery, Green Belt planning, and local plan collaboration. In this analysis, members of the Cornerstone Planning and Environment Team highlight the key takeaways. https://cornerstonebarristers.com/the-new-nppf-a-christmas-cracker/
An interesting and useful read. In essence: it's very early days. That some LAs don't bother to do the work on Local Plans is something I didn't know - we've never been in that position (amusingly, we're mentioned by name in that article as having a new Local Plan that's just been submitted).
Full Green Belt review, aimed at the minimum necessary to achieve specific aims, and these aims being compared with affordability (and an affordability threshold for settlements surrounded by Green Belts that would automatically trigger a further independent review).
Listed buildings review (my stance - which gets me shot at by both sides - is that Grade II should be abolished. Listed building status to be reserved to Grade I, Grade II*, and monuments).
Rules for phone masts, signage, and wind turbines to be loosened significantly. That we need an actual application for planning permission to change a restaurant sign from "Harvester" to "Miller and Carter" when the place change ownership is, to me, absurd.
Most (if not all) of Section 7 (limiting retails sites to town centres) to be erased. You can't preserve the town centre by planning rules; all you can do is force a lingering decay. Provide revitalisation/regeneration/re-use opportunities by other means. If I never hear the words "sequential test" again, I'd be happier. Actually, if you DO insist on supporting town centre shopping with planning rules, use LDOs to make it much easier to get retail sites built and/or changed in specific areas.
Developments over a certain size MUST have on-site parking for all vehicles (including workers' own cars) to ensure they don't jam up surrounding roads (may seem daft, but this single action could defuse a lot of aggravation around here).
Beyond these specifics, a general improvement on infrastructure-led development and actionable powers of enforcement (you should never need several years of wrangling to require a developer to remove tonnes upon tonnes of rubble they buried below where the sports fields are supposed to go, raising the level by six feet, making it unusable for sports, and permitting passers-by to look into bedroom windows abutting the green areas).
On phone masts, I’d allow up to 50m - same as in literally every other European country - and the ability to increase the height of existing ones with just prior notification.
I’d have permitted development allowing masts in any area up to 50m.
This sounds extreme but actually if we had taller masts we’d need significantly fewer of them.
"Reform UK is prepared to name an alleged Chinese spy linked to Prince Andrew – despite a court order protecting his identity, Nigel Farage has said.
The party is threatening to use parliamentary privilege – which gives MPs certain legal immunities over what they say in the Commons – to reveal who the businessman is in the chamber."
"Reform UK is prepared to name an alleged Chinese spy linked to Prince Andrew – despite a court order protecting his identity, Nigel Farage has said.
The party is threatening to use parliamentary privilege – which gives MPs certain legal immunities over what they say in the Commons – to reveal who the businessman is in the chamber."
I think that would be a silly thing to do, unless the full range of their influence is being covered up. But there is a report coming out on this next week, which parts have clearly been leaked, so it isn't like it is being kept out of the public domain.
In March 2021, however, McMurtry and Deer placed themselves in financiers’ hands when they announced that their combined majority interest in Renishaw was for sale, at a price which valued the business at £5 billion.
Expressions of interest came from Germany and elsewhere, but the duo were adamant they would sell only to a buyer who would keep the company intact and maintain its research and development budget, which was unusually high for a British manufacturer.
Four months later, no satisfactory suitor had emerged and they called the sale off, declaring themselves – at 81 and 83 respectively – in good health and “fully committed” to the company’s future. It was a decision that one commentator felt “should be applauded by anyone who believes in responsible capitalism”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/12/14/sir-david-mcmurtry-renishaw-3d-printing/ (£££)
From the Telegraph obituary of Renishaw founder Sir David McMurtry who was a big cheese in the world of precision engineering but no fan of the City.
Interesting story. I don't know how close to commercialisation this is, but it would potentially wipe out any steelmakers not using it.
https://interestingengineering.com/science/china-new-ironmaking-method-boosts-productivity-3600-times ...new iron making technology developed in China is set to significantly impact the global steel industry. Developed after more than 10 years of research, this method injects finely ground iron ore powder into a very hot furnace, causing an “explosive chemical reaction”, according to the engineers. The result is a continuous flow of high-purity iron that forms as bright red, glowing liquid droplets that accumulate at the base of the furnace, ready for direct casting or one-step steel-making.
The flash iron making method, as detailed by Professor Zhang Wenhai and his team in a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Nonferrous Metals last month, can complete the iron making process in just three to six seconds, compared to the five to six hours required by traditional blast furnaces. ..
...Zhang’s team has developed a vortex lance that can inject 450 tonnes of iron ore particles per hour. A reactor equipped with three such lances produces 7.11 million tonnes of iron annually. As per the paper, the lance “has already entered commercial production.”
Although the concept of applying this process to iron making originated in the US, it was Zhang’s team that developed a flash smelting technology capable of directly producing liquid iron. They obtained a patent in 2013 and spent the next decade refining the method...
Anyone know how realistic this stuff is ?
Zero idea. But there are questions. One perhaps stupid one: they say the raw material is iron ore, which will be things like siderite or magnetite. These ores are not pure iron, but iron mixed with other elements; mostly oxygen.
The iron-oxygen bond is strong, and requires a lot of energy to break, and something else to connect the free oxygen to, They use carbon (hence coking coal needed for steelmaking).
Does it use carbon to break the iron-oxygen bonds? If not, that would *massively* reduce theCO2 output from steelmaking. If it does use carbon, how is that introduced? One novel process uses Hydrogen instead of carbon, meaning water comes out of the process instead.
Also, what about trace impurities? Put simply: where does the slag go?
There are various other potential new steelmaking processes out there, most aiming to reduce energy required or CO2 produced. And this has been common throughout the history of steel: no-one uses the Bessemer process any more. It was replaced by the open-hearth furnace, which in itself was replaced by the oxtgen converter process post-WW2.
Interesting stuff. (IANAE, the information above may be faulty, especially at 5 on a Sunday morning. DYOR etc...)
On behalf of everyone at West Ham United, it is with deep and profound sadness that I confirm the tragic passing of our U15s Academy goalkeeper Oscar Fairs, following his brave battle with cancer.
Oscar was adored by everyone at the Academy - not only was he a great goalkeeper, he was a true Hammer and a fantastic young person, who will be deeply missed by everyone who had the pleasure to know him. https://www.whufc.com/news/oscar-fairs-2009-2024
In an age when promising footballer is too often a euphemism...
I do not underrate Farage’s popularity at all. And I think he’s got a very strong chance of PM.
But I don’t underrate SKS’s chances either. The majority of PB seems to have decided he’s a dud six months after winning a landslide.
The numbers don’t look good for SKS
That trend line is rather similar to Gordon Brown, but never as popular and even faster descent.
If you just looked at those graphs, you’d imagine that Johnson was the exception, who appears to have been very successful. Yet he was the one who had to resign having been utterly discredited.
I do not underrate Farage’s popularity at all. And I think he’s got a very strong chance of PM.
But I don’t underrate SKS’s chances either. The majority of PB seems to have decided he’s a dud six months after winning a landslide.
The numbers don’t look good for SKS
That trend line is rather similar to Gordon Brown, but never as popular and even faster descent.
If you just looked at those graphs, you’d imagine that Johnson was the exception, who appears to have been very successful. Yet he was the one who had to resign having been utterly discredited.
That is a) because had a bit of a cult like Trump who think he is great regardless* and b) if they hadn't got rid when thy did he would have ended up there once high inflation etc kicked in.
* his downfall was started with the handling of parliamentary affairs, I don't think the public followed much of how he tried to bend the rules to get his mates off. And his cult followers probably went bloody civil servants partying, Boris wasn't (the fact he clearly gave them the nod and then lying about it, as I say like Trump, he has cult like believers).
Just looking at the graph, Sunak pretty much exactly follows on from Boris left. I think if Boris continued he would have followed the Sunak trajectory.
I do not underrate Farage’s popularity at all. And I think he’s got a very strong chance of PM.
But I don’t underrate SKS’s chances either. The majority of PB seems to have decided he’s a dud six months after winning a landslide.
The numbers don’t look good for SKS
That trend line is rather similar to Gordon Brown, but never as popular and even faster descent.
If you just looked at those graphs, you’d imagine that Johnson was the exception, who appears to have been very successful. Yet he was the one who had to resign having been utterly discredited.
That is a) because had a bit of a cult like Trump who think he is great regardless* and b) if they hadn't got rid when thy did he would have ended up there once high inflation etc kicked in.
* his downfall was started with the handling of parliamentary affairs, I don't think the public followed much of how he tried to bend the rules to get his mates off. And his cult followers probably went bloody civil servants partying, Boris wasn't (the fact he clearly gave them the nod and then lying about it, as I say like Trump, he has cult like believers).
I do laugh at the Johnson hatred. He was a poor PM, and that was obvious from well before he became PM. He was brought down by his own personal failings. But, as keeps on being said, he got Covid vaccines and Ukraine right - two massive calls, and faced a situation with Covid that no PM would have emerged from looking good.
But many people still see Blair as, if not a brilliant PM, a good one. Yet he was not brought down by the disaster of Iraq; he kept on giving twice-sacked Mandelson jobs; and his wife associated with dodgy people. Too many Blairite fans ignore these, and other, failings.
And as for Starmer: it is evident he likes freebies: but that's hardly an uncommon failing. He could still end up being a good PM, even after a rocky start. But his fans should acknowledge when he makes mistakes, instead of covering their ears and going la-la-la-la.
Just looking at the graph, Sunak pretty much exactly follows on from Boris left. I think if Boris continued he would have followed the Sunak trajectory.
Probably. But there is a little hope for the few Borisites left: he did actually have a dream, and one that connected with the population in 2019. *If*, after Covid, he had gone great guns on the Red Wall and levelling up, it might have made a difference. But I don't think enough to stop a drubbing.
Truss also had a dream, but it was insane. Sunak had no central dream, and was left trying to manage a party that was in a death spiral.
Starmer IMO has no dream either, and just relies on a load of platitudes. Sadly for him, as he is not a salesman, those platitudes sound hollow at best. If only he had Boris or Blair's ability to sell stuff.
Just looking at the graph, Sunak pretty much exactly follows on from Boris left. I think if Boris continued he would have followed the Sunak trajectory.
Probably. But there is a little hope for the few Borisites left: he did actually have a dream, and one that connected with the population in 2019. *If*, after Covid, he had gone great guns on the Red Wall and levelling up, it might have made a difference. But I don't think enough to stop a drubbing.
Truss also had a dream, but it was insane. Sunak had no central dream, and was left trying to manage a party that was in a death spiral.
Starmer IMO has no dream either, and just relies on a load of platitudes. Sadly for him, as he is not a salesman, those platitudes sound hollow at best. If only he had Boris or Blair's ability to sell stuff.
Disastrous day for England at Hamilton. A long away from what we’ve come to expect in recent times and basically New Zealand have us by the marsupials going into day three.
They lead by 340 with seven second innings wickets in hand. The weather might help tomorrow as heavy rain is due to spread south across the North Island so I expect little play tomorrow.
Unfortunately, Tuesday and Wednesday look fine so we’ve still got a long way to go.
Disastrous day for England at Hamilton. A long away from what we’ve come to expect in recent times and basically New Zealand have us by the marsupials going into day three.
They lead by 340 with seven second innings wickets in hand. The weather might help tomorrow as heavy rain is due to spread south across the North Island so I expect little play tomorrow.
Unfortunately, Tuesday and Wednesday look fine so we’ve still got a long way to go.
Hope you're off-setting your carbon footprint, Stodge?
But there is a little hope for the few Borisites left: he did actually have a dream, and one that connected with the population in 2019.
His dream was to be PM
The rest were slogans, not actual realisable plans
The Garden Bridge waves hello...
The problem with the Garden Bridge was that it *was* a realisable plan. A realisable plan they spent ?50? million on. It could easily have been built; there was nothing technologically advanced or particularly novel about it.
It was just that the plan was unnecessary and cr@p.
I do not underrate Farage’s popularity at all. And I think he’s got a very strong chance of PM.
But I don’t underrate SKS’s chances either. The majority of PB seems to have decided he’s a dud six months after winning a landslide.
The numbers don’t look good for SKS
That trend line is rather similar to Gordon Brown, but never as popular and even faster descent.
If you just looked at those graphs, you’d imagine that Johnson was the exception, who appears to have been very successful. Yet he was the one who had to resign having been utterly discredited.
That is a) because had a bit of a cult like Trump who think he is great regardless* and b) if they hadn't got rid when thy did he would have ended up there once high inflation etc kicked in.
* his downfall was started with the handling of parliamentary affairs, I don't think the public followed much of how he tried to bend the rules to get his mates off. And his cult followers probably went bloody civil servants partying, Boris wasn't (the fact he clearly gave them the nod and then lying about it, as I say like Trump, he has cult like believers).
I do laugh at the Johnson hatred. He was a poor PM, and that was obvious from well before he became PM. He was brought down by his own personal failings. But, as keeps on being said, he got Covid vaccines and Ukraine right - two massive calls, and faced a situation with Covid that no PM would have emerged from looking good.
Boris also implemented the will of the people as expressed explicitly in a referendum and implicitly in three general elections, thereby decisively ending the paralysis that had gripped the country for three and a half years as Remainers refused to accept the results, and securing the country's future as a democracy.
But he had no ideology except to be in power and no interest in the routine business of government. That would have been fine had he delegated the day-to-day work to somebody competent. Unfortunately, he chose about the worst crank to get anywhere near power in this country's modern history. So his government quickly got into difficulties and was then destroyed by trivialities.
I do not underrate Farage’s popularity at all. And I think he’s got a very strong chance of PM.
But I don’t underrate SKS’s chances either. The majority of PB seems to have decided he’s a dud six months after winning a landslide.
The numbers don’t look good for SKS
That trend line is rather similar to Gordon Brown, but never as popular and even faster descent.
If you just looked at those graphs, you’d imagine that Johnson was the exception, who appears to have been very successful. Yet he was the one who had to resign having been utterly discredited.
That is a) because had a bit of a cult like Trump who think he is great regardless* and b) if they hadn't got rid when thy did he would have ended up there once high inflation etc kicked in.
* his downfall was started with the handling of parliamentary affairs, I don't think the public followed much of how he tried to bend the rules to get his mates off. And his cult followers probably went bloody civil servants partying, Boris wasn't (the fact he clearly gave them the nod and then lying about it, as I say like Trump, he has cult like believers).
I do laugh at the Johnson hatred. He was a poor PM, and that was obvious from well before he became PM. He was brought down by his own personal failings. But, as keeps on being said, he got Covid vaccines and Ukraine right - two massive calls, and faced a situation with Covid that no PM would have emerged from looking good.
But many people still see Blair as, if not a brilliant PM, a good one. Yet he was not brought down by the disaster of Iraq; he kept on giving twice-sacked Mandelson jobs; and his wife associated with dodgy people. Too many Blairite fans ignore these, and other, failings.
And as for Starmer: it is evident he likes freebies: but that's hardly an uncommon failing. He could still end up being a good PM, even after a rocky start. But his fans should acknowledge when he makes mistakes, instead of covering their ears and going la-la-la-la.
Johnson didn’t get COVID right, at all. His initial response was a complacent “nothing to worry about”, going round the hospital deliberately touching everything and everyone, whereupon he and a shedload of his staff promptly came down with the virus themselves; inside Downing Street he was a superspreader. Every account of his decision-making reveals someone who vacillated this way and that, unable to reconcile his own instinctive disregard for rules with the need to impose strict restrictions on society, and the on-off flip-flopping over Christmas and over the schools reopening were risible and did tremendous damage. His media performances were generally pitiful. He turned PPE procurement into such a scandalous fiasco that, when the need to procure vaccines came along, he was read the riot act by senior officials and scientists and told to keep his and his greedy chums’ mitts off the whole exercise - hence that bit actually went rather well, despite, not because of, our useless PM.
He probably only got Ukraine right because he was in a panic about his own Russian connections during the period immediately prior.
I do not underrate Farage’s popularity at all. And I think he’s got a very strong chance of PM.
But I don’t underrate SKS’s chances either. The majority of PB seems to have decided he’s a dud six months after winning a landslide.
The numbers don’t look good for SKS
That trend line is rather similar to Gordon Brown, but never as popular and even faster descent.
If you just looked at those graphs, you’d imagine that Johnson was the exception, who appears to have been very successful. Yet he was the one who had to resign having been utterly discredited.
That is a) because had a bit of a cult like Trump who think he is great regardless* and b) if they hadn't got rid when thy did he would have ended up there once high inflation etc kicked in.
* his downfall was started with the handling of parliamentary affairs, I don't think the public followed much of how he tried to bend the rules to get his mates off. And his cult followers probably went bloody civil servants partying, Boris wasn't (the fact he clearly gave them the nod and then lying about it, as I say like Trump, he has cult like believers).
I do laugh at the Johnson hatred. He was a poor PM, and that was obvious from well before he became PM. He was brought down by his own personal failings. But, as keeps on being said, he got Covid vaccines and Ukraine right - two massive calls, and faced a situation with Covid that no PM would have emerged from looking good.
But many people still see Blair as, if not a brilliant PM, a good one. Yet he was not brought down by the disaster of Iraq; he kept on giving twice-sacked Mandelson jobs; and his wife associated with dodgy people. Too many Blairite fans ignore these, and other, failings.
And as for Starmer: it is evident he likes freebies: but that's hardly an uncommon failing. He could still end up being a good PM, even after a rocky start. But his fans should acknowledge when he makes mistakes, instead of covering their ears and going la-la-la-la.
Johnson didn’t get COVID right, at all. His initial response was a complacent “nothing to worry about”, going round the hospital deliberately touching everything and everyone, whereupon he and a shedload of his staff promptly came down with the virus themselves; inside Downing Street he was a superspreader. Every account of his decision-making reveals someone who vacillated this way and that, unable to reconcile his own instinctive disregard for rules with the need to impose strict restrictions on society, and the on-off flip-flopping over Christmas and over the schools reopening were risible and did tremendous damage. His media performances were generally pitiful. He turned PPE procurement into such a scandalous fiasco that, when the need to procure vaccines came along, he was read the riot act by senior officials and scientists and told to keep his and his greedy chums’ mitts off the whole exercise - hence that bit actually went rather well, despite, not because of, our useless PM.
He probably only got Ukraine right because he was in a panic about his own Russian connections during the period immediately prior.
That attitude was very common at the beginning of Covid - and not just in the UK. People were in disbelief. The first lockdown was a massive and unprecedented curtailment of civil liberties, however much it was required (and it was).
PPE procurement was always going to be a disaster: you would end up either not getting any, or paying money to charlatans. There really was no middle ground, however much people pretend otherwise.
I might remind you of Starmer calling for *more* and *longer* lockdowns, which I think are now seen as bad calls. Johnson was not the only person making bad calls at that time; it was just that he was in power.
But as I've said passim: thank goodness Corbyn wasn't in charge during Covid. Johnson was a giant in comparison.
Is battleship common shorthand for warships of which I wasn’t aware, or do the ahistorical blithering idiots at the Tele think the Vanguard is still a serving ship?
Comments
Sure his hand was somewhat forced in practice, but in theory he'd survived the VONC so was safe for a year no matter how many resigned so he had to voluntarily step down in the end.
(Actually I'm being unfair on French, ironically the weakest of my A-levels, which I have used in adult life).
But AI is about to become a great deal more pervasive, quite rapidly, and likely without the same developed structure of control and legal accountability.
The story is about a relatively trivial incident, but it's not massively hard to imagine a more consequential set of events.
If Starmer ends up.acting differently, it will be because of the ways he is different (older, second career, not really a politician).
Though if Labour are going to pull the old switcheroo on us, he and Reeves will stick around for a while yet. There's still a lot of toxic waste for this government to absorb (thanks largely to the last lot), and the best strategy for Newguyorgal will be for the old team to clear as much of it as possible.
She is also Reform. But has been with them and their UKIP antecedents since before Brexit.
You’d think with all that holiness coursing through her veins she’d have a strong sense of morality, but not when it comes to a certain close family member and his “propensity”.
Baldwin didn’t think he could win the argument about re-armament politically. Many believed that total pacifism would win over the country.
Re-armament was in the form of setting up factories and giving money to the steel companies to rebuild the armour plate making setups. The idea was to wait until nearer the war to start producing the actual aircraft and tanks required. Technology was making both obsolete by the year.
Ships were different (longer lead times) and were being built to the capacity of the industry.
So the U.K. appeared to be falling behind Germany - which exaggerated what they were building, as well.
The actual plan was to switch funding to mass production in 1940-41 - 5,000 Standard Bombers, 400mph cannon armed fighters, 17lbr anti tank gun as standard etc etc. all to be ready in early 1942, which was the German target for peak armament.
But Hitler started the war 3 years early. And got very lucky - many of the panzers in 1939 were tin cans, for example.
She also doesn’t believe in climate change, along with evolution and all of those other centrist dad fads.
There are different sorts of intelligence.
There’s smartness: savvy, the ability to get stuff, the skill to live on your wits.
There’s academic capability: the ability to absorb learning and perform well in exams and assignments.
Then there’s intellectual curiosity: just wanting to know about why the world is as it is, or people are as they are.
Anyone with any of those will be known as “bright”, but it will manifest itself in different ways. General studies appeals to the intellectually curious.
FTFY.
And since Starmer has been in Parliament, most premierships have been relatively short. He was first elected in 2015, since when Cameron lasted another year; Theresa May three years; Boris the same; Liz Truss and then Rishi about two years. So from that perspective, going early is quite normal.
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1867871285021385200?s=46
The Assad family firm was in charge for half a century.
The counterfactual is that a more militaristic Conservative Party lost the '35 election, and the resulting pacifist administration caused Britain's defeat.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-style/people/2024/12/14/former-tory-minister-steve-baker-ireland-has-been-treated-badly-by-the-uk-its-fking-shaming/
This is complete madness.
https://x.com/TakeThatClouds/status/1867866332034932915
Which would suggest a massive increase in status for someone rightly regarded as a useless tosser at best.
George Galloway: "The Arab world is now dead to me. The Syrian Arab Republic was its last gasp."
https://x.com/PostLeftWatch/status/1867831523967463534
He goes on to rant about "Chinamen"...
Why is the USG behaving and speaking so oddly? "We don't quite know what they are, we have concerns, too, but we know they are not a threat" - know how? Know what, when?
It's all too peculiar. The best guess is that USG is hiding something - advanced military tests? Some psy-ops? - hence their weird caginess and hapless, contradictory remarks
Truly the phantom airships of our generation.
(That also happens to be the flight path for Edinburgh Airport.)
"He has been appointed as an adviser to Axiom, a venture capital firm for the Bitcoin industry."
Oh dear.
eg One major news agency made a video of a "spinning orb" and they posted about it with wild exctiement - and then someone pointed out that, in truth, it was a star - but out of focus
Sounds ridiculous…
Any bright, distant, OOF light source looks like an "orb".
Personally I think there is *some* seed of reality here, and it's not all delusional. I am hard pushed to believe it is aliens slowly buzzing around in car sized drones with all the lights on, showing a mild obsession with New Jersey and East Anglia
I don't know how close to commercialisation this is, but it would potentially wipe out any steelmakers not using it.
https://interestingengineering.com/science/china-new-ironmaking-method-boosts-productivity-3600-times
...new iron making technology developed in China is set to significantly impact the global steel industry. Developed after more than 10 years of research, this method injects finely ground iron ore powder into a very hot furnace, causing an “explosive chemical reaction”, according to the engineers. The result is a continuous flow of high-purity iron that forms as bright red, glowing liquid droplets that accumulate at the base of the furnace, ready for direct casting or one-step steel-making.
The flash iron making method, as detailed by Professor Zhang Wenhai and his team in a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Nonferrous Metals last month, can complete the iron making process in just three to six seconds, compared to the five to six hours required by traditional blast furnaces. ..
...Zhang’s team has developed a vortex lance that can inject 450 tonnes of iron ore particles per hour. A reactor equipped with three such lances produces 7.11 million tonnes of iron annually. As per the paper, the lance “has already entered commercial production.”
Although the concept of applying this process to iron making originated in the US, it was Zhang’s team that developed a flash smelting technology capable of directly producing liquid iron. They obtained a patent in 2013 and spent the next decade refining the method...
Anyone know how realistic this stuff is ?
Ben Judah, David Lammy’s special advisor, on the ‘New London’
‘I didn’t recognise it anymore’""
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1867865441533866158
https://x.com/kane/status/1867634573146038337
The point is he stepped down during his first term, just as william asked. He stepped down as his colleagues wanted him to, but he did so either way.
Ditto if Starmer's colleagues want him out, then he might resign just as Boris had to.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1867865441533866158
(From eight years ago)
People see shit all the time, its why people believe in bullshit like astronomy and religion and ghosts and aliens and any other crap.
And the media has a bottom-line interest in getting clickbait silly stories published to pad their revenue.
And politicians have an interest in getting votes from cranks.
There's nothing that can't be explained.
"its why people believe in bullshit like astronomy"
(How his own mob stood 150 candidates in 2024 I have no idea)
But I don’t underrate SKS’s chances either. The majority of PB seems to have decided he’s a dud six months after winning a landslide.
... do not say found liable for rape.
Trump gets $15m in ABC News defamation case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
I’d have permitted development allowing masts in any area up to 50m.
This sounds extreme but actually if we had taller masts we’d need significantly fewer of them.
https://news.sky.com/story/watchdog-to-issue-new-guidance-after-report-finds-air-fryers-may-be-listening-13273180
"Reform UK is prepared to name an alleged Chinese spy linked to Prince Andrew – despite a court order protecting his identity, Nigel Farage has said.
The party is threatening to use parliamentary privilege – which gives MPs certain legal immunities over what they say in the Commons – to reveal who the businessman is in the chamber."
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-12-14/reform-threatens-to-name-alleged-chinese-spy-linked-to-prince-andrew-in-commons
Expressions of interest came from Germany and elsewhere, but the duo were adamant they would sell only to a buyer who would keep the company intact and maintain its research and development budget, which was unusually high for a British manufacturer.
Four months later, no satisfactory suitor had emerged and they called the sale off, declaring themselves – at 81 and 83 respectively – in good health and “fully committed” to the company’s future. It was a decision that one commentator felt “should be applauded by anyone who believes in responsible capitalism”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2024/12/14/sir-david-mcmurtry-renishaw-3d-printing/ (£££)
From the Telegraph obituary of Renishaw founder Sir David McMurtry who was a big cheese in the world of precision engineering but no fan of the City.
Four Type-45 battleships of six in fleet in refit yard in Portsmouth as MPs warn of Britain’s vulnerability to attack
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/14/only-two-navy-destroyers-currently-operational/ (£££)
The iron-oxygen bond is strong, and requires a lot of energy to break, and something else to connect the free oxygen to, They use carbon (hence coking coal needed for steelmaking).
Does it use carbon to break the iron-oxygen bonds? If not, that would *massively* reduce theCO2 output from steelmaking. If it does use carbon, how is that introduced? One novel process uses Hydrogen instead of carbon, meaning water comes out of the process instead.
Also, what about trace impurities? Put simply: where does the slag go?
There are various other potential new steelmaking processes out there, most aiming to reduce energy required or CO2 produced. And this has been common throughout the history of steel: no-one uses the Bessemer process any more. It was replaced by the open-hearth furnace, which in itself was replaced by the oxtgen converter process post-WW2.
Interesting stuff. (IANAE, the information above may be faulty, especially at 5 on a Sunday morning. DYOR etc...)
On behalf of everyone at West Ham United, it is with deep and profound sadness that I confirm the tragic passing of our U15s Academy goalkeeper Oscar Fairs, following his brave battle with cancer.
Oscar was adored by everyone at the Academy - not only was he a great goalkeeper, he was a true Hammer and a fantastic young person, who will be deeply missed by everyone who had the pleasure to know him.
https://www.whufc.com/news/oscar-fairs-2009-2024
In an age when promising footballer is too often a euphemism...
* his downfall was started with the handling of parliamentary affairs, I don't think the public followed much of how he tried to bend the rules to get his mates off. And his cult followers probably went bloody civil servants partying, Boris wasn't (the fact he clearly gave them the nod and then lying about it, as I say like Trump, he has cult like believers).
But many people still see Blair as, if not a brilliant PM, a good one. Yet he was not brought down by the disaster of Iraq; he kept on giving twice-sacked Mandelson jobs; and his wife associated with dodgy people. Too many Blairite fans ignore these, and other, failings.
And as for Starmer: it is evident he likes freebies: but that's hardly an uncommon failing. He could still end up being a good PM, even after a rocky start. But his fans should acknowledge when he makes mistakes, instead of covering their ears and going la-la-la-la.
Truss also had a dream, but it was insane. Sunak had no central dream, and was left trying to manage a party that was in a death spiral.
Starmer IMO has no dream either, and just relies on a load of platitudes. Sadly for him, as he is not a salesman, those platitudes sound hollow at best. If only he had Boris or Blair's ability to sell stuff.
Disastrous day for England at Hamilton. A long away from what we’ve come to expect in recent times and basically New Zealand have us by the marsupials going into day three.
They lead by 340 with seven second innings wickets in hand. The weather might help tomorrow as heavy rain is due to spread south across the North Island so I expect little play tomorrow.
Unfortunately, Tuesday and Wednesday look fine so we’ve still got a long way to go.
I'm sure there will be another "Arab" dictator for The Gorgeous One to cozy up to soon enough...
The rest were slogans, not actual realisable plans
The Garden Bridge waves hello...
It was just that the plan was unnecessary and cr@p.
But he had no ideology except to be in power and no interest in the routine business of government. That would have been fine had he delegated the day-to-day work to somebody competent. Unfortunately, he chose about the worst crank to get anywhere near power in this country's modern history. So his government quickly got into difficulties and was then destroyed by trivialities.
He probably only got Ukraine right because he was in a panic about his own Russian connections during the period immediately prior.
Gold wallpaper...
PPE procurement was always going to be a disaster: you would end up either not getting any, or paying money to charlatans. There really was no middle ground, however much people pretend otherwise.
I might remind you of Starmer calling for *more* and *longer* lockdowns, which I think are now seen as bad calls. Johnson was not the only person making bad calls at that time; it was just that he was in power.
But as I've said passim: thank goodness Corbyn wasn't in charge during Covid. Johnson was a giant in comparison.