Swinney doesn't seem focused particularly on independence and on current polls the SNP are projected to lose seats in 2026, so I can't see an indyref2 and independence imminently on the horizon.
Most likely it would need the SNP holding the balance of power in a hung parliament yes
This is a government that you can tell was state educated. What a bunch of troglodytes.
State school pupils in England may have to drop GCSE Latin after funding pulled
DfE urged to delay ending funding of popular programme so that hundreds of students can complete their courses
State school pupils taking GCSE Latin may be forced to drop the subject or even have to teach themselves after the government ends funding for a popular programme that has increased the numbers learning Latin across England.
School leaders, scholars and authors are urging the Department for Education to offer a reprieve to the Latin excellenceprogramme, to enable hundreds of students to complete their GCSE courses and allow schools time to find additional support.
The DfE announced shortly before Christmas that it would end funding in February for the programme, which supports Latin lessons for more than 8,000 pupils at 40 non-selective state schools, as part of the government’s cost-cutting drive to stabilise public finances.
The cuts mean the programme will no longer be able to fund Latin teachers in schools from the end of next month, leaving some without qualified staff.
Tom Holland, the award-winning author and host of The Rest Is History podcast, said he supported continued funding for the programme, launched in 2021, arguing that Latin should not be abandoned to “posh ghettoes” within private schools.
Why would you ever want to cut programmes in the middle of a school year?
All that will happen is the Latin teachers will move to private tutoring, so those who can afford it can still do the exams while those who can’t lose out, despite two years of studying towards them.
This is a government that you can tell was state educated. What a bunch of troglodytes.
State school pupils in England may have to drop GCSE Latin after funding pulled
DfE urged to delay ending funding of popular programme so that hundreds of students can complete their courses
State school pupils taking GCSE Latin may be forced to drop the subject or even have to teach themselves after the government ends funding for a popular programme that has increased the numbers learning Latin across England.
School leaders, scholars and authors are urging the Department for Education to offer a reprieve to the Latin excellenceprogramme, to enable hundreds of students to complete their GCSE courses and allow schools time to find additional support.
The DfE announced shortly before Christmas that it would end funding in February for the programme, which supports Latin lessons for more than 8,000 pupils at 40 non-selective state schools, as part of the government’s cost-cutting drive to stabilise public finances.
The cuts mean the programme will no longer be able to fund Latin teachers in schools from the end of next month, leaving some without qualified staff.
Tom Holland, the award-winning author and host of The Rest Is History podcast, said he supported continued funding for the programme, launched in 2021, arguing that Latin should not be abandoned to “posh ghettoes” within private schools.
Why would you ever want to cut programmes in the middle of a school year?
All that will happen is the Latin teachers will move to private tutoring, so those who can afford it can still do the exams while those who can’t lose out, despite two years of studying towards them.
I read the Blairites are holding their heads in despair at Phillipson.
She's attacking not only every reform the last government made, but those they did too.
I don’t understand why some rate Phillipson. There have even been tips on here about her being the next leader. To me she comes across as rather robotic and unlikeable. That of course doesn’t preclude someone from becoming a leader but I don’t see much in the way of presentation or policy to commend her.
Streeing, Rayner, Darren Jones I “get”. Not so Phillipson.
I don't know her. She might be perfectly nice so far as she goes.
I just think she's been totally captured by the progressive educational lobby and its paymasters.
I fully expect to see England slip down the education rankings by the end of this parliamentary term.
I can only presume that Starmer knows nothing about education, nor has any interest, so has just given her carte blanche to take the wrecking ball out.
I don't know why Phillipson is spending so much time on schools when higher education is the one in absolute meltdown.
The universities are close to crisis. Do anything there’s, and some blame for the crisis might stick to her.
Much easier to cancel a GCSE for thousands of state school kids.
I see they’re blaming The Black Hole(TM) for this as well.
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
Swinney doesn't seem focused particularly on independence and on current polls the SNP are projected to lose seats in 2026, so I can't see an indyref2 and independence imminently on the horizon.
Most likely it would need the SNP holding the balance of power in a hung parliament yes
Would Badenoch or Jenrick (as potential PM) view breaking the Union forever as value for five years of inch-perfect Conservative Government in England and Wales?
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I find it mildly ironic that enthusiastic Brexiteers who condemned Starmer's call for a second advisory Referendum to confirm the first, as undemocratic, are cheerleading Musk's plot to take down the recently elected Government and demanding a new election.
This is a government that you can tell was state educated. What a bunch of troglodytes.
State school pupils in England may have to drop GCSE Latin after funding pulled
DfE urged to delay ending funding of popular programme so that hundreds of students can complete their courses
State school pupils taking GCSE Latin may be forced to drop the subject or even have to teach themselves after the government ends funding for a popular programme that has increased the numbers learning Latin across England.
School leaders, scholars and authors are urging the Department for Education to offer a reprieve to the Latin excellenceprogramme, to enable hundreds of students to complete their GCSE courses and allow schools time to find additional support.
The DfE announced shortly before Christmas that it would end funding in February for the programme, which supports Latin lessons for more than 8,000 pupils at 40 non-selective state schools, as part of the government’s cost-cutting drive to stabilise public finances.
The cuts mean the programme will no longer be able to fund Latin teachers in schools from the end of next month, leaving some without qualified staff.
Tom Holland, the award-winning author and host of The Rest Is History podcast, said he supported continued funding for the programme, launched in 2021, arguing that Latin should not be abandoned to “posh ghettoes” within private schools.
“Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit,”
“Migrants are no better than vomit”
“These damn immigrants can’t be trusted, they’re all criminals,”
“I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves,”
“Japanese are all Yakuza.”
“Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.”
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar and the displacement of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role,” the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.
“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real-world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.
I find it mildly ironic that enthusiastic Brexiteers who condemned Starmer's call for a second advisory Referendum to confirm the first, as undemocratic, are cheerleading Musk's plot to take down the recently elected Government and demanding a new election.
To quote Jimmy Greaves, "it's a funny old game!"
You still don't understand the concept of "implementing a result", do you?
Or "trolling"? Oh, no, you definitely understand that one.
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
That’s Stéphane Israël‘s excuse.
The problem is that cost in space launch is no longer irrelevant. IRIS2 is going to be as capable (maybe) as OneWeb. Because the cost of launching on Ariane 6 makes a mega constellation impossible.
So Europe will be using Starlink or Kuiper. Because of Israël & Co.
Firing and demoting people for advocating parallel development of things like Themis is unforgivable.
Arguing that George Sowers spreadsheet was right (that you need 20+ launches to make reusability make sense) was debunked within hours of it being chucked out there. Many years ago.
Edit; and because of the higher cost, it is getting hard for Ariane to keep European payloads on A6. Looking at you, Germany…
“Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit,”
“Migrants are no better than vomit”
“These damn immigrants can’t be trusted, they’re all criminals,”
“I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves,”
“Japanese are all Yakuza.”
“Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.”
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar and the displacement of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role,” the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.
“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real-world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
This is a government that you can tell was state educated. What a bunch of troglodytes.
State school pupils in England may have to drop GCSE Latin after funding pulled
DfE urged to delay ending funding of popular programme so that hundreds of students can complete their courses
State school pupils taking GCSE Latin may be forced to drop the subject or even have to teach themselves after the government ends funding for a popular programme that has increased the numbers learning Latin across England.
School leaders, scholars and authors are urging the Department for Education to offer a reprieve to the Latin excellenceprogramme, to enable hundreds of students to complete their GCSE courses and allow schools time to find additional support.
The DfE announced shortly before Christmas that it would end funding in February for the programme, which supports Latin lessons for more than 8,000 pupils at 40 non-selective state schools, as part of the government’s cost-cutting drive to stabilise public finances.
The cuts mean the programme will no longer be able to fund Latin teachers in schools from the end of next month, leaving some without qualified staff.
Tom Holland, the award-winning author and host of The Rest Is History podcast, said he supported continued funding for the programme, launched in 2021, arguing that Latin should not be abandoned to “posh ghettoes” within private schools.
Why would you ever want to cut programmes in the middle of a school year?
All that will happen is the Latin teachers will move to private tutoring, so those who can afford it can still do the exams while those who can’t lose out, despite two years of studying towards them.
It's ridiculous.
Even for a narrow-minded loather of knowledge and learning, slicing in half a course to learn something and get a qualification because "Latin = bad" is just vindictive.
I'm not a big fan of Latin - probably better to put the resources into modern languages - but courses already started should continue.
For languages start them two or three years earlier or don't bother. By the time we start too few get beyond basic holiday level. By the time they grow up, instant translation will be commonplace anyway.
By the time they grow up? It’s here now. If you have advanced voice mode you can just say “be a human translator for the next hour” and it will do it - between multiple languages. In real time. By talking to you. Not by text. Even better you can ask it to translate multiple languages into English within the same conversation - and vice versa. It’s magical
For anyone wondering, it's slippery as hell right now. Stuff's melting, but it's ice/compacted snow with a thin layer of water on top so it's easily the worst footing of winter.
For a week we've had damp roads and lethal pavements.
“Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit,”
“Migrants are no better than vomit”
“These damn immigrants can’t be trusted, they’re all criminals,”
“I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves,”
“Japanese are all Yakuza.”
“Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.”
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar and the displacement of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role,” the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.
“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real-world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.
“Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit,”
“Migrants are no better than vomit”
“These damn immigrants can’t be trusted, they’re all criminals,”
“I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves,”
“Japanese are all Yakuza.”
“Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.”
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar and the displacement of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role,” the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.
“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real-world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.
“Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit,”
“Migrants are no better than vomit”
“These damn immigrants can’t be trusted, they’re all criminals,”
“I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves,”
“Japanese are all Yakuza.”
“Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.”
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar and the displacement of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role,” the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.
“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real-world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
That’s Stéphane Israël‘s excuse.
(Snip)
It isn't an 'excuse'. It's the blooming reality of *why* Arianespace exists. It's at the very core of their being.
Now, you can say the world's changed. But what hasn't changed is the US's ability to be sh*ts, as they were in 1970 over Symphonie.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
See the Jeremy Clarkson/May video, made at the time. Partly made out of anger at what they saw as Remain screwing up the campaign.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Implying a natural majority for remain, if people hadn't been put off by Cameron? Probably right, who knows.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Absolutely the case. It’s because the leading proponents of the remain campaign were tentative at best, and often themselves Eurosceptic. Cameron’s “renegotiation” was all about distancing the UK from the heart of the project.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
R4 Today were covering this topical issue at about 8.55 am this morning. It is of about equal importance with Gaza, and substantially more important than Sudan judging from the time allotted.
Re: Phillipson. I read (admitedly in "The Telegraph") that she wants to make English Literature taught in schools more "inclusive". So goodbye to the classics. One headteacher was quoted as saying that English in schools should look at Instagram and Tiktok.
Then there was a thinktank report that school trips were "too middleclass" Instead of going to museums and the theatre, there should be graffiti workshops.
I really despair of the Phillipson Philistinism. I was naive to think that Labour cared about the Arts. Whereas the Conservative Government had the attitude "we can't pour public money into the Arts as everything should be profit making", Labour seems to have the attitude "we can't pour public money into the Arts, as the Arts are middle-class."
Phillipson claims she represents the working class as she grew up in a house "with no upstairs heating." I grew up in a house with no heating, except the one coal fire we could afford. I love Shakespeare and the classics, so Phuck you Phillipson.
“Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit,”
“Migrants are no better than vomit”
“These damn immigrants can’t be trusted, they’re all criminals,”
“I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves,”
“Japanese are all Yakuza.”
“Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.”
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar and the displacement of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role,” the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.
“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real-world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
The thing is Driver even the most ardent Remainers had a list of substantial criticisms of the EU in their back pockets. We weren't enthusiasts, we just felt the alternative was even worse. The Remain campaign reflected this, which is why it was as you say so ineffective. All we had was what you called "Project Fear", which essentially was "leaving will be worse than staying" which isn't a great sell and some of the hyperbole was absurd.
The two leave campaigns on the other hand were far more positive and could promise unicorns grazing sunny uplands. When questioned as to who would shovel up the unicorn poo when the nasty zero hours Eastern Europeans went home, Boris Johnson explained that it would be "our friends" from the Indian Subcontinent (which is fine by me) but all of you weren't listening by then.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Implying a natural majority for remain, if people hadn't been put off by Cameron? Probably right, who knows.
A natural majority for the status quo, sure. The reason why the zealots fought so hard to overturn the result, because they understood that once status quo bias would be hard to overcome in any future Rejoin referendum.
For anyone wondering, it's slippery as hell right now. Stuff's melting, but it's ice/compacted snow with a thin layer of water on top so it's easily the worst footing of winter.
For a week we've had damp roads and lethal pavements.
And they wonder why there are queues at A&E.
It's been a little tricky here for the last week but not too bad. Bloody awful this morning. Hoping the melt is rapid. Currently at 4C, the hottest it's been for a week or more.
The problem with the UK at the moment is that politicians are too political. Just heard a bbc report about some Labour economic plans and Labour MPs were complaining to the reporter that the plans were for the long term and so wouldn’t make people feel better in time for the next election.
So bugger the country, it’s all about the electoral cycle. And all parties are bad on this.
Maybe we need ten year gaps between elections to allow longer term thinking.
Being stuck for five years with an utterly useless Parliament like the current one where the overwhelming majority was elected by 20% of the electorate is awful enough.
Inflicting it on ourselves for a decade would be national suicide.
Ha, I wasn’t exactly being serious about the ten years - but it is frustrating how all parties are too scared to do things because of the next election which confirms that power is more important than governing.
The disgraceful decision to kick the care costs issue into the long grass being case in point.
Government theme this morning is AI, which has a slightly dead cat on table feel. Lots of abstract nouns, lots of long term general uplift, lots of billions to be saved by magic, lots of jobs. Meanwhile social care is kicked out to 2028+ and A and E is on trolleys out into the car park.
This government is very much the opposite of what vote switchers switched for.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Or, flip it around, the EU’s inflexibility on Free Movement and the Labour government’s insane decision to throw open the borders to the Accession countries - gave Leave an invaluable boost in the referendum
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
That’s Stéphane Israël‘s excuse.
(Snip)
It isn't an 'excuse'. It's the blooming reality of *why* Arianespace exists. It's at the very core of their being.
Now, you can say the world's changed. But what hasn't changed is the US's ability to be sh*ts, as they were in 1970 over Symphonie.
It was the reason that Arianespace was started.
Half a century ago.
Refusing to see that the world has changed (in aerospace, FFS) and firing and demoting people for arguing that, as a backup, reusability projects should be pushed to completion, is gross incompetence.
Themis should have flown years ago. But, like X33, too many people saw it as a way of sidelining “dangerous” thinking and work into a dead end development project.
It’s as stupid as not building battery factories.
Because now, Europe will not have a strategic capability.
Ah but this will be an AI supercomputer, probably made using Nvidia GPUs, unlike the cancelled HPC supercomputer made from Nvidia GPUs. So it's completely different you see.
Not that one UK supercomputer is going to make much difference to our prospects. xAI's Colossus supercomputer was built in 122 days, less time than it took Labour to reverse their cancellation.
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
That’s Stéphane Israël‘s excuse.
(Snip)
It isn't an 'excuse'. It's the blooming reality of *why* Arianespace exists. It's at the very core of their being.
Now, you can say the world's changed. But what hasn't changed is the US's ability to be sh*ts, as they were in 1970 over Symphonie.
It was the reason that Arianespace was started.
Half a century ago.
Refusing to see that the world has changed (in aerospace, FFS) and firing and demoting people for arguing that, as a backup, reusability projects should be pushed to completion, is gross incompetence.
Themis should have flown years ago. But, like X33, too many people saw it as a way of sidelining “dangerous” thinking and work into a dead end development project.
It’s as stupid as not building battery factories.
Because now, Europe will not have a strategic capability.
Funny you should mention batteries. The most recent Good Times Bad Times video was about Europe (read EU) and its weakness versus the USA/China, with NorthVolt cited as an example of strategic failure.
Nine years later - still haven't figured out why you lost.
You still don't realise how, or why, or what you "won"
Utter derangement of a small number of very loud zealots, apparently.
Given how deranged some of the winners have become, heaven help us all had they lost.
They’d have donned the khaki and picked up a rifle if they didn’t get the Brexit they wanted, so who knows what excesses might have been committed by that losing team. Could have been bloody given so many Brexiteers seem to believe they were at the Normandy landings.
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
Dying in a ditch over the principle that you don't start students on a course of study and then pull the funding mid-year out of spite, on the other hand...
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Incorrect. The single biggest reason Leave won is by definition the single biggest reason Remain lost.
I find it mildly ironic that enthusiastic Brexiteers who condemned Starmer's call for a second advisory Referendum to confirm the first, as undemocratic, are cheerleading Musk's plot to take down the recently elected Government and demanding a new election.
To quote Jimmy Greaves, "it's a funny old game!"
You still don't understand the concept of "implementing a result", do you?
Or "trolling"? Oh, no, you definitely understand that one.
The EU election was advisory. The July 2024 election wasn't. But the same people who are outraged that anyone questions overturning the advisory vote with another advisory democratic vote are four square behind Musk taking down Starmer.
Edit: I note the standard response to a questioning of Brexit is trolling. Here's trolling, can you list the benefits of Brexit? To make it a permanent record you can write the list on the back of this postage stamp.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Absolutely the case. It’s because the leading proponents of the remain campaign were tentative at best, and often themselves Eurosceptic. Cameron’s “renegotiation” was all about distancing the UK from the heart of the project.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
The tragedy was and is that neither in nor out is an acceptable position. Out is useless because of trade, influence, SM, customs etc. In is useless because of the ambiguity about being a nation/state (Euro, ECB, parliament, politically appointed ministers, flag, anthem, ever closer union, FoM).
EFTA/EEA remains the only sane, though far from perfect, option.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
The thing is Driver even the most ardent Remainers had a list of substantial criticisms of the EU in their back pockets. We weren't enthusiasts, we just felt the alternative was even worse. The Remain campaign reflected this, which is why it was as you say so ineffective. All we had was what you called "Project Fear", which essentially was "leaving will be worse than staying" which isn't a great sell and some of the hyperbole was absurd.
The two leave campaigns on the other hand were far more positive and could promise unicorns grazing sunny uplands. When questioned as to who would shovel up the unicorn poo when the nasty zero hours Eastern Europeans went home, Boris Johnson explained that it would be "our friends" from the Indian Subcontinent (which is fine by me) but all of you weren't listening by then.
There was, of course, no reason for any Eastern European to go home. Settled status was really easy.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Or, flip it around, the EU’s inflexibility on Free Movement and the Labour government’s insane decision to throw open the borders to the Accession countries - gave Leave an invaluable boost in the referendum
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
Thing is, the "control the border" voters weren't winnable by Remain. Some of the democracy/sovereignty ones were.
I find it mildly ironic that enthusiastic Brexiteers who condemned Starmer's call for a second advisory Referendum to confirm the first, as undemocratic, are cheerleading Musk's plot to take down the recently elected Government and demanding a new election.
To quote Jimmy Greaves, "it's a funny old game!"
You still don't understand the concept of "implementing a result", do you?
Or "trolling"? Oh, no, you definitely understand that one.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
That’s Stéphane Israël‘s excuse.
(Snip)
It isn't an 'excuse'. It's the blooming reality of *why* Arianespace exists. It's at the very core of their being.
Now, you can say the world's changed. But what hasn't changed is the US's ability to be sh*ts, as they were in 1970 over Symphonie.
It was the reason that Arianespace was started.
Half a century ago.
Refusing to see that the world has changed (in aerospace, FFS) and firing and demoting people for arguing that, as a backup, reusability projects should be pushed to completion, is gross incompetence.
Themis should have flown years ago. But, like X33, too many people saw it as a way of sidelining “dangerous” thinking and work into a dead end development project.
It’s as stupid as not building battery factories.
Because now, Europe will not have a strategic capability.
Thank God Europe built Galileo in the face of arguments that it was a waste of money given that we'd always have access to the US GPS system.
NB: Quite q dodgy pollster, but a more reliable Danish pollster also has a majority of Greenlanders wanting to join the USA. At the same time, some polls show Greenlanders wanting to join the EU...
Whatever the case, it looks like they will vote for full independence from Denmark ASAP
The Greenlandic PM has said Greenlanders want to be neither Danish or American but independent yes.
Though with a population of 50,000 ie less than Harlow he might find it difficult to hold off Trump on that
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Absolutely the case. It’s because the leading proponents of the remain campaign were tentative at best, and often themselves Eurosceptic. Cameron’s “renegotiation” was all about distancing the UK from the heart of the project.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
The tragedy was and is that neither in nor out is an acceptable position. Out is useless because of trade, influence, SM, customs etc. In is useless because of the ambiguity about being a nation/state (Euro, ECB, parliament, politically appointed ministers, flag, anthem, ever closer union, FoM).
EFTA/EEA remains the only sane, though far from perfect, option.
Indeed. And we've missed two chances to reach that option - both before the referendum by not having it on the ballot paper, and after it by the immediate movement by the anti-democrats to try to overturn the result rather than argue for the best possible form of Brexit.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
Eurozealots cling to this fantasy that they lost because more than half the country is racist.
I guess it's more palatable than having to blame themselves for being so fucking useless.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Or, flip it around, the EU’s inflexibility on Free Movement and the Labour government’s insane decision to throw open the borders to the Accession countries - gave Leave an invaluable boost in the referendum
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
Thing is, the "control the border" voters weren't winnable by Remain. Some of the democracy/sovereignty ones were.
The paradox is that the “control the border” voters got the opposite of what they wanted. Which is presumably why many of them regret their vote - as the polls confirm
For a democracy/sovereignty Leaver like me, virtually everything since the vote has convinced me it was the right if brutally tough decision - not least the shameless attempt to overturn and ignore the Leave vote without ever enacting it. Typical of the EU - shit like that is EXACTLY why we left
Thank god the “2nd voters” were defeated. I fear we would have spiralled into civil strife if they had prevailed. They would certainly have demolished British democracy overnight
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
The thing is Driver even the most ardent Remainers had a list of substantial criticisms of the EU in their back pockets. We weren't enthusiasts, we just felt the alternative was even worse. The Remain campaign reflected this, which is why it was as you say so ineffective. All we had was what you called "Project Fear", which essentially was "leaving will be worse than staying" which isn't a great sell and some of the hyperbole was absurd.
The two leave campaigns on the other hand were far more positive and could promise unicorns grazing sunny uplands. When questioned as to who would shovel up the unicorn poo when the nasty zero hours Eastern Europeans went home, Boris Johnson explained that it would be "our friends" from the Indian Subcontinent (which is fine by me) but all of you weren't listening by then.
There was, of course, no reason for any Eastern European to go home. Settled status was really easy.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
I hate to break it to you @Scott_xP but when it comes to Brexit there is only one “swivel eyed loon” remaining on PB, and, well, you know
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Or, flip it around, the EU’s inflexibility on Free Movement and the Labour government’s insane decision to throw open the borders to the Accession countries - gave Leave an invaluable boost in the referendum
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
I'd also say that freedom of movement combined with Merkel's decision to invite millions of Middle Easterners to Germany - and hence to anywhere in Europe - combined with the Cologne rape parties which took place in the lead-up to the vote - was sub-optimal for Remain's case as it pertained to immigration.
I'd echo the case that there was definitely a hearts and minds case to be made for Remain which wasn't really attempted beyond "only really dreadful people vote Leave and if you vote Leave we're going to punish you."
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
It would be hard to disagree with Driver that the Remain campaign was incredibly poor. One can counter that with the promises from the Leave campaigns were simple fantasies.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Or, flip it around, the EU’s inflexibility on Free Movement and the Labour government’s insane decision to throw open the borders to the Accession countries - gave Leave an invaluable boost in the referendum
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
I'd also say that freedom of movement combined with Merkel's decision to invite millions of Middle Easterners to Germany - and hence to anywhere in Europe - combined with the Cologne rape parties which took place in the lead-up to the vote - was sub-optimal for Remain's case as it pertained to immigration.
I'd echo the case that there was definitely a hearts and minds case to be made for Remain which wasn't really attempted beyond "only really dreadful people vote Leave and if you vote Leave we're going to punish you."
The positive case should have been “look, what a wonderful homeland we have in Europe. All this is yours. You can work and love and live anywhere you like, from the isles of Greece to the forests of Finland, from Malaga to nice, from Normandy to Sicily, you are a proud European as well as a proud Briton!” - cue stirring music of the British lion on a sun lounger and the queen talking French etc etc
I didn’t study Latin at all at school and it hasn’t done me any harm whatsoever. That said it does seem silly to cut something in the middle of a school year.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
It would be hard to disagree with Driver that the Remain campaign was incredibly poor. One can counter that with the promises from the Leave campaigns were simple fantasies.
People don't buy fords cos they don't like Honda's adverts
The outcome of the vote reflected the desire of voters to "get rid of the forrin" which is what the leave campaign promised them
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Absolutely the case. It’s because the leading proponents of the remain campaign were tentative at best, and often themselves Eurosceptic. Cameron’s “renegotiation” was all about distancing the UK from the heart of the project.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
I was just listening to the episodes Political Currency did on Brexit with Michael Gove last year. Gove said that for Leave to win everything had to go right for them, and that sounds right to me. If Remain had run a better campaign; if Labour at the time had had a leader who'd actively campaigned for Remain; if Boris (or Gove) hadn't opted to support Leave; etc etc. The result was so close that there are a lot of things you could point to and say "that's what swung it".
Per the header, the Scottish indyref had a harder task by not having "status quo" on their side, and although they got a lot of things going their way they didn't get enough -- Osborne reckoned the business about the currency was enough to persuade undecideds to stay put.
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
That’s Stéphane Israël‘s excuse.
(Snip)
It isn't an 'excuse'. It's the blooming reality of *why* Arianespace exists. It's at the very core of their being.
Now, you can say the world's changed. But what hasn't changed is the US's ability to be sh*ts, as they were in 1970 over Symphonie.
It was the reason that Arianespace was started.
Half a century ago.
(Snip)
Lordy. It is the reason Arianespace exists *today*. It is central to their core and purpose.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
It would be hard to disagree with Driver that the Remain campaign was incredibly poor. One can counter that with the promises from the Leave campaigns were simple fantasies.
People don't buy fords cos they don't like Honda's adverts
The outcome of the vote reflected the desire of voters to "get rid of the forrin" which is what the leave campaign promised them
I don't deny that, but the Remain campaign was incredibly ineffective if accurate. Perhaps Remain could have offered unicorns too.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
It would be hard to disagree with Driver that the Remain campaign was incredibly poor. One can counter that with the promises from the Leave campaigns were simple fantasies.
That was somewhat intrinsic in the way Cameron designed the referendum - what "Leave" meant was deliberately undefined so as to allow Project Fear to be deployed to maximum effect; and the Leave campaign wasn't going to form a government so had no way to ensure that its vision of Leave would inform the A50 negotiations. This was calculated to make the Leave campaign promises be easy for the Remain campaign to destroy.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
Brexiteers cling to this fantasy that the "swivel eyed loons and closet racists" won because of the actions of people who didn't want Brexit, didn't advocate it, didn't campaign for it and didn't vote for it.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
It would be hard to disagree with Driver that the Remain campaign was incredibly poor. One can counter that with the promises from the Leave campaigns were simple fantasies.
People don't buy fords cos they don't like Honda's adverts
Well, I'll give you credit for coming up with a new false analogy.
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
If you can find the money to buy the Panama Canal fifty million bucks is a drop in the Panama Canal, just cut some social and healthcare funding, and while you're at it let's give the super rich a well deserved tax cut.
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
I didn’t study Latin at all at school and it hasn’t done me any harm whatsoever. That said it does seem silly to cut something in the middle of a school year.
That's the really egregious point. SKS accepted a massive bung so his son's education wouldn't be harmed during the election, yet he is perfectly open to other kid's education being harmed mid-year.
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
If it happens it will be a grievous blow to Denmark and a pretty nasty blow for the EU. Macron has been banging on about Greenland being “EU territory” and therefore sacrosanct etc
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
I didn’t study Latin at all at school and it hasn’t done me any harm whatsoever. That said it does seem silly to cut something in the middle of a school year.
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
If it happens it will be a grievous blow to Denmark and a pretty nasty blow for the EU. Macron has been banging on about Greenland being “EU territory” and therefore sacrosanct etc
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
Well I expect they'll vote for independence next April so (At that point) they won't be anyone's territory. The question is does Trump make them an offer at that point.
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
If it happens it will be a grievous blow to Denmark and a pretty nasty blow for the EU. Macron has been banging on about Greenland being “EU territory” and therefore sacrosanct etc
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
Well I expect they'll vote for independence next April so (At that point) they won't be anyone's territory. The question is does Trump make them an offer at that point.
(1) No mention of "hatred of foreigners" in that report (2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then (a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and (b) in any case, that polling is complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.
But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
I think the Remain campaign failed to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters, who were receptive to it in principle.
Then why even mention "hating foreigners"?
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
The single biggest reason Leave won was that the Leave campaign pushed an anti-immigration message.
Or, flip it around, the EU’s inflexibility on Free Movement and the Labour government’s insane decision to throw open the borders to the Accession countries - gave Leave an invaluable boost in the referendum
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
I'd also say that freedom of movement combined with Merkel's decision to invite millions of Middle Easterners to Germany - and hence to anywhere in Europe - combined with the Cologne rape parties which took place in the lead-up to the vote - was sub-optimal for Remain's case as it pertained to immigration.
I'd echo the case that there was definitely a hearts and minds case to be made for Remain which wasn't really attempted beyond "only really dreadful people vote Leave and if you vote Leave we're going to punish you."
So you reckon it was xenophobia that won it for the Brexiteers?
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
If it happens it will be a grievous blow to Denmark and a pretty nasty blow for the EU. Macron has been banging on about Greenland being “EU territory” and therefore sacrosanct etc
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
Countries/territories which would, arguably, be in the EU were it not for the Common Fisheries Policy:
Greenland Faroe Islands Iceland United Kingdom Norway
It's a strange sort who is prepared to die in a ditch over Latin teaching.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
The same posters who are outraged that other people's children are incurring a huge debt to read for "Mickey Mouse degrees".
So you are in favour of withdrawing teaching and effectively cancelling GCSEs that children have been studying for? As they head into the mocks and the final straight?
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
If it happens it will be a grievous blow to Denmark and a pretty nasty blow for the EU. Macron has been banging on about Greenland being “EU territory” and therefore sacrosanct etc
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
If it happens it will be a grievous blow to Denmark and a pretty nasty blow for the EU. Macron has been banging on about Greenland being “EU territory” and therefore sacrosanct etc
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
"There is no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be (...) attack its sovereign borders," Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told France Inter radio. "We are a strong continent. We need to strengthen ourselves more," he added.
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Greenland has valuable resources so purchasing it would generate future tax revenues for the US. It wouldn't be like spaffing $50 Bn on a Whitehall or Washington reorganisation or whatever. I expect the Greenlanders will sell but it'll be for more than $5 Bn, though less than $50 Bn.
If it happens it will be a grievous blow to Denmark and a pretty nasty blow for the EU. Macron has been banging on about Greenland being “EU territory” and therefore sacrosanct etc
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
Greenland left the European Community in 1985.
“France warns Trump against threatening EU 'sovereign borders' on Greenland 'There is no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be (...) attack its sovereign borders,' said Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot.”
In spite of endless exhortations to Remoaners to 'get over it', it seems that any return to the dog vomit of Brexit sets off Brexiteers into a frenzy of not getting over it and excited speculation (yet again) on the future failure of the EU. Motes and beams lads.
It would be especially humiliating for Putin if Trump could pull off the peaceful annexation of Greenland by sheer force of personality.
...and a cash settlement of a million bucks to each Greenlander.
That’s fifty billion. A hard sell to the average American. Also not needed
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
Firstly, I very much doubt $100k each would do it. It really isn't very much money.
But secondly, and more importantly, it isn't Greenlanders (GDP = $3 billion) that would need paying off - it's the state of Denmark (GDP = $400 billion).
The whole thing is a complete non-runner and standard Trump tactics - ludicrous threats and braggadocio, followed by a fairly trivial concession of some kind which he sells as huge and gamechanging.
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
For those wondering, Starship launch is now not before Wednesday.
Finger crossed. A monopoly on launch services isn't a particularly good thing.
It's interesting how the different rockets have different strengths (*). New Glenn can lift less than SS to LEO, but NG is *much* better currently at getting things to GTO and beyond. SS has a bigger 'fairing', but someone claimed that the difference isn't that great, as SS has lots of structural stuff getting in the way.
SLS is best at wasting money.
It's interesting how the planned capabilities of both rockets has decreased over time. SS is nowhere near the planned 100 tonnes to orbit, and NG is well under its target of 45 tonnes (figures from memory; may be wrong).
(*) As far as we know, given neither is currently operational.
Meanwhile, Stéphane Israël had one job
(Snip)
If things continue the way they are, a non-American and non-Musk route to space for Europe might seem a *very* wise thing...
Like I said, Stéphane had one job. Making sure Europe had an independent and competitive space launch capability.
That's my point: "competitive" is not the vital point.
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
That’s Stéphane Israël‘s excuse.
(Snip)
It isn't an 'excuse'. It's the blooming reality of *why* Arianespace exists. It's at the very core of their being.
Now, you can say the world's changed. But what hasn't changed is the US's ability to be sh*ts, as they were in 1970 over Symphonie.
It was the reason that Arianespace was started.
Half a century ago.
(Snip)
Lordy. It is the reason Arianespace exists *today*. It is central to their core and purpose.
And as a result of Stéphane Israël‘s (and others) obduracy, that ability is not being updated. Which will make it increasingly useless.
Already, it’s getting hard to get European countries to fly their national payloads of A6. Europe can’t build a mega constellation - unlike the US. China is racing to get the launch capability to enable their own mega constellations.
Europe is approaching the position of having really awesome turbo-compound aero engines. In the jet age.
In spite of endless exhortations to Remoaners to 'get over it', it seems that any return to the dog vomit of Brexit sets off Brexiteers into a frenzy of not getting over it and excited speculation (yet again) on the future failure of the EU. Motes and beams lads.
Plenty of remainers here getting into a frenzy every time an event happens which they think might cause something which causes something which causes something which makes us Rejoin. Trump getting elected, for example.
OGH spent many years arging that the EU didn't matter to voters based on the 'importance polling'. And then suddenly we had Brexit.
But the Brexit vote wasn't about membership of the EU
It was about hating "foreigners"
You keep deluding yourself like that Scott. That delusion is one of the major reasons why you lost last time. So do keep it up please.
It's not pleasant for you to accept that many people who share your views are racists but Scott is right.
No, he's not.
"10% of the country are racists, they all voted Leave, the margin was 4%, therefore it woz the racists wot won it" is a fallacy - because that group weren't persuadable, they were always going to vote leave.
If there were only 2.5% of the population who were persuadable but who voted Leave because of the Remain campaign's utter ineptitude, that's a much bigger and actually decisive number.
Think by analogy to a POTUS election and the talk of which is going to be the tipping point state. On one extreme, you have California and much of New England, and on the other you have much of the South. The election is won and lost in the middle.
OGH spent many years arging that the EU didn't matter to voters based on the 'importance polling'. And then suddenly we had Brexit.
But the Brexit vote wasn't about membership of the EU
It was about hating "foreigners"
You keep deluding yourself like that Scott. That delusion is one of the major reasons why you lost last time. So do keep it up please.
It's not pleasant for you to accept that many people who share your views are racists but Scott is right.
What is untrue is this: that Brexit voters are on the whole extemists or racists. When 16 million+ UK people vote for something, that conclusion is impossible. There just are not enough extremists and racists to achieve it.
Maybe some horrible people voted for Brexit. It's quite possible that among Remainers were people who thought that little people in ugly and neglected places didn't really matter much.
Comments
Most likely it would need the SNP holding the balance of power in a hung parliament yes
Arianespace fluked into getting a competitive commercial rocket with the Ariane 4. It wasn't meant to be competitive; but (perhaps thanks to the changing market after the Challenger disaster), it was. That continued with Ariane 5 until SpaceX changed the market again.
The whole thing started because the US government were ****s and stopped the Franco-German Symphonie satellites from being commercially used, despite (or because of) their being more advanced than any US satellites.
*That's* what Arianespace is meant to prevent. Cost is very much a secondary factor.
https://bsky.app/profile/geoffreyharris.bsky.social/post/3lfh7er2a4k24
(2) If you're conflating "control of immigration" with "hatred of foreigners"; then
(a) that says more about you than Leave voters, and
(b) in any case, that polling is
complete bollocksdeeply flawed for several reasons.But I'll shut up now, because you're another one of the deranged zealots who have missed that the Remain campaign totally failed to even try to sell a positive vision of the EU to the majority of voters who were receptive to it in principle.
To quote Jimmy Greaves, "it's a funny old game!"
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit.”
“Gays are freaks.”
“Get these trannies out of my school (beneath photo of high school students).”
“Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit,”
“Migrants are no better than vomit”
“These damn immigrants can’t be trusted, they’re all criminals,”
“I bet Jorge’s the one who stole my backpack after track practice today. Immigrants are all thieves,”
“Japanese are all Yakuza.”
“Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.”
Meta has faced international scrutiny for its approach to hate speech, most notably after the role that hate speech and other dehumanizing language on Facebook played in fomenting genocide in Myanmar and the displacement of over 650,000 Rohingya Muslims. Following criticism of its mishandling of Myanmar, where the United Nations found Facebook had played a “determining role,” the company spent years touting its investment in preventing the spread of similar rhetoric in the future.
“The reason many of these lines were drawn where they were is because hate speech often doesn’t stay speech, it turns into real-world conduct,” said Klonick, the content moderation scholar.
https://theintercept.com/2025/01/09/facebook-instagram-meta-hate-speech-content-moderation/
Or "trolling"? Oh, no, you definitely understand that one.
The problem is that cost in space launch is no longer irrelevant. IRIS2 is going to be as capable (maybe) as OneWeb. Because the cost of launching on Ariane 6 makes a mega constellation impossible.
So Europe will be using Starlink or Kuiper. Because of Israël & Co.
Firing and demoting people for advocating parallel development of things like Themis is unforgivable.
Arguing that George Sowers spreadsheet was right (that you need 20+ launches to make reusability make sense) was debunked within hours of it being chucked out there. Many years ago.
Edit; and because of the higher cost, it is getting hard for Ariane to keep European payloads on A6. Looking at you, Germany…
And they wonder why there are queues at A&E.
I note Meta’s new rules won’t apply in the EU, where Meta will continue to follow EU rules.
Now, you can say the world's changed. But what hasn't changed is the US's ability to be sh*ts, as they were in 1970 over Symphonie.
The single biggest reason Remain lost was that the Remain campaign was shit.
That and some voter complacency (“send a message to Cameron”) meant a close contest went one way when it might have gone the other.
Ad munimenta, commilitones!
Then there was a thinktank report that school trips were "too middleclass" Instead of going to museums and the theatre, there should be graffiti workshops.
I really despair of the Phillipson Philistinism. I was naive to think that Labour cared about the Arts. Whereas the Conservative Government had the attitude "we can't pour public money into the Arts as everything should be profit making", Labour seems to have the attitude "we can't pour public money into the Arts, as the Arts are middle-class."
Phillipson claims she represents the working class as she grew up in a house "with no upstairs heating." I grew up in a house with no heating, except the one coal fire we could afford. I love Shakespeare and the classics, so Phuck you Phillipson.
The two leave campaigns on the other hand were far more positive and could promise unicorns grazing sunny uplands. When questioned as to who would shovel up the unicorn poo when the nasty zero hours Eastern Europeans went home, Boris Johnson explained that it would be "our friends" from the Indian Subcontinent (which is fine by me) but all of you weren't listening by then.
This government is very much the opposite of what vote switchers switched for.
But I agree in essence: there were not enough sovereignty/democracy Leavers like me to win the vote alone. Leave needed the “control the border” voters as well
And then the Tories won Brexit and entirely lost control of the borders
Interesting to see Bannon use the term Technofeudalism. Varouoakis
Half a century ago.
Refusing to see that the world has changed (in aerospace, FFS) and firing and demoting people for arguing that, as a backup, reusability projects should be pushed to completion, is gross incompetence.
Themis should have flown years ago. But, like X33, too many people saw it as a way of sidelining “dangerous” thinking and work into a dead end development project.
It’s as stupid as not building battery factories.
Because now, Europe will not have a strategic capability.
Fascinating but hard
Not that one UK supercomputer is going to make much difference to our prospects. xAI's Colossus supercomputer was built in 122 days, less time than it took Labour to reverse their cancellation.
He wasn't the first ro think of the team, but he's been, mainly, the one to be heavily expanding it, and deepening it.
Edit: I note the standard response to a questioning of Brexit is trolling. Here's trolling, can you list the benefits of Brexit? To make it a permanent record you can write the list on the back of this postage stamp.
EFTA/EEA remains the only sane, though far from perfect, option.
I guess it's more palatable than the truth
Though with a population of 50,000 ie less than Harlow he might find it difficult to hold off Trump on that
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/10/greenland-pm-says-ready-to-talk-to-trump
I guess it's more palatable than having to blame themselves for being so fucking useless.
For a democracy/sovereignty Leaver like me, virtually everything since the vote has convinced me it was the right if brutally tough decision - not least the shameless attempt to overturn and ignore the Leave vote without ever enacting it. Typical of the EU - shit like that is EXACTLY why we left
Thank god the “2nd voters” were defeated. I fear we would have spiralled into civil strife if they had prevailed. They would certainly have demolished British democracy overnight
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/70129/pdf/
*coughs awkwardly*
I'd echo the case that there was definitely a hearts and minds case to be made for Remain which wasn't really attempted beyond "only really dreadful people vote Leave and if you vote Leave we're going to punish you."
Ram it home again and again. Should have won
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
Significant further rises in gilt yields again already this morning, up 5-6 basis points. Awkward.
The outcome of the vote reflected the desire of voters to "get rid of the forrin" which is what the leave campaign promised them
Per the header, the Scottish indyref had a harder task by not having "status quo" on their side, and although they got a lot of things going their way they didn't get enough -- Osborne reckoned the business about the currency was enough to persuade undecideds to stay put.
$100,000k personally to every Greenlander would do it. Five billion
This will get the blood flowing. Anyone interested?
Well, I'll give you credit for coming up with a new false analogy.
One rule for him, another rule for us.
Losing the UK and then Greenland and soon the EU will start to look wobbly
Greenland
Faroe Islands
Iceland
United Kingdom
Norway
Hope it was worth it, lads.
Why not end Latin teaching after the exams?
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/01/08/france-warns-trump-against-threatening-eu-sovereign-borders-on-greenland_6736834_4.html
"There is no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be (...) attack its sovereign borders," Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot told France Inter radio. "We are a strong continent. We need to strengthen ourselves more," he added.
'There is no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be (...) attack its sovereign borders,' said Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot.”
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/01/08/france-warns-trump-against-threatening-eu-sovereign-borders-on-greenland_6736834_4.html
Motes and beams lads.
But secondly, and more importantly, it isn't Greenlanders (GDP = $3 billion) that would need paying off - it's the state of Denmark (GDP = $400 billion).
The whole thing is a complete non-runner and standard Trump tactics - ludicrous threats and braggadocio, followed by a fairly trivial concession of some kind which he sells as huge and gamechanging.
Already, it’s getting hard to get European countries to fly their national payloads of A6. Europe can’t build a mega constellation - unlike the US. China is racing to get the launch capability to enable their own mega constellations.
Europe is approaching the position of having really awesome turbo-compound aero engines. In the jet age.
Trump threatening to take Greenland and Panama by force just gives a green light to the likes of Putin for further expansion.
"10% of the country are racists, they all voted Leave, the margin was 4%, therefore it woz the racists wot won it" is a fallacy - because that group weren't persuadable, they were always going to vote leave.
If there were only 2.5% of the population who were persuadable but who voted Leave because of the Remain campaign's utter ineptitude, that's a much bigger and actually decisive number.
Think by analogy to a POTUS election and the talk of which is going to be the tipping point state. On one extreme, you have California and much of New England, and on the other you have much of the South. The election is won and lost in the middle.
Maybe some horrible people voted for Brexit. It's quite possible that among Remainers were people who thought that little people in ugly and neglected places didn't really matter much.