Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
Jeremy Vine tells a good story about Boris. As a guest speaker Boris turns up late, just before he is on, appears hassled, asks who the audience is and asks questions, scribbles stuff on a scrap of paper, gives up, goes on and does a cracking speech.
Jeremy is impressed.
Months later Jeremy is in the same position again with him (and others) waiting for Boris just before he is due to go on stage for a speech. Boris goes through an identical routine.
Jeremy now realises it is an act.
No criticism. He does it well.
PS I have organised a number of big events and always got grilled by the keynote speaker. The most interesting was by a magician who wanted me to identify individuals with specific traits.
Yes, I've heard that story too. There were some more details - about how he started telling exactly the same joke and 'forgot' the punchline in exactly the same place both times. As you say, a performative character, very amusing in roles such as speaker or compere or entertainer, where he couldn't do much harm.
And, of itself, nothing much wrong with that. The world would be a greyer place without amusing rogues like Boris.
Where it goes wrong is the other stuff we the public tend to infer from that performance. If we assume that the Borises of this world really are as clever as they pretend to be, we are liable to put them in charge of things, and that has consequences.
See also: political speechmaking. Politicians saying their own stuff tells the audience useful things about the quality of their mind. Politicians reading out lines written by others...rather less so.
Its astonishing that this sort of nonsense is still being pumped out. Regulatory alignment "could" result in 2.2% of additional growth.
If you take the example of AI, for example, it is possible that non alignment with the overly restrictive EU regime "could" create x% of additional growth in the UK (and possibly result in us being taken over by AI, but that is another issue).
Whether we want to align with the EU in any given area is something that is in our discretion. There are some areas where it makes sense to do so. Doing so effectively requires mutual recognition at any given point in time. It is up to both sides to decide whether or not to grant that, whether we have the same regulations or not. If the price of mutual recognition is that we undertake to impose any restriction dreamed up by Brussels in the future it is too high a price to pay.
It's nonsense essentially all the trade experts agree with. Removing trade frictions increases trade, which in turn increases GDP. It won't all happen because the EU won't sign up to it all. But some will
There isn’t a neat correlation between wealth and trade. Some of the poorest countries do a lot of trade as a percentage of GDP and some of the richest do less.
Well: there is a very clear positive correlation between country size and amount of trade.
The smaller the country, the less likely they are to be able to do produce everything themselves. So you need to control for that.
Ultimately, you have to ask yourself a question: is the government the best arbiter of where you spend your money, or should people (as much as possible) be allowed to make their own decisions?
For humour value, I asked ChatGPT to list the 10 countries where trade was the highest proportion of GDP. You will be staggered to learn that none are poor, and 8 of the 10 are among the richest countries in the world.
Because rich countries can afford imports?
How’s your insurance company doing in Chad? What do you mean that’s not a priority market for you?
Its astonishing that this sort of nonsense is still being pumped out. Regulatory alignment "could" result in 2.2% of additional growth.
If you take the example of AI, for example, it is possible that non alignment with the overly restrictive EU regime "could" create x% of additional growth in the UK (and possibly result in us being taken over by AI, but that is another issue).
Whether we want to align with the EU in any given area is something that is in our discretion. There are some areas where it makes sense to do so. Doing so effectively requires mutual recognition at any given point in time. It is up to both sides to decide whether or not to grant that, whether we have the same regulations or not. If the price of mutual recognition is that we undertake to impose any restriction dreamed up by Brussels in the future it is too high a price to pay.
It's nonsense essentially all the trade experts agree with. Removing trade frictions increases trade, which in turn increases GDP. It won't all happen because the EU won't sign up to it all. But some will
There isn’t a neat correlation between wealth and trade. Some of the poorest countries do a lot of trade as a percentage of GDP and some of the richest do less.
Well: there is a very clear positive correlation between country size and amount of trade.
The smaller the country, the less likely they are to be able to do produce everything themselves. So you need to control for that.
Ultimately, you have to ask yourself a question: is the government the best arbiter of where you spend your money, or should people (as much as possible) be allowed to make their own decisions?
For humour value, I asked ChatGPT to list the 10 countries where trade was the highest proportion of GDP. You will be staggered to learn that none are poor, and 8 of the 10 are among the richest countries in the world.
A relative, who runs a building company, just asked ChatGPT to describe his company, as test
ChatGPT informed him that his company is run by a famous 18th/19th century master builder/developer.
So, you're saying your friend depends on a Ouiji board?
Probably more value added than some of the boards I have worked with!
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
I'm not sure you can generalise. I was in Parliament for 13 years and had roughly the same level of non-prominence as the MPs in question. I was certainly active online on things I didn't really feel strongly about, but thought that constituents would. I wouldn't have put anything really offensive about anyone online, so there was an element of self-censorship, as there were a couple of people I privately thought of as borderline wankers. But broadly I said what I thought, and arguably it helped get re-elected in what was then essentially a Tory seat (the late Jim Lester had a majority of 10,000 in 1992) - I built up an email list of 10,000 constituents, many of them not instinctively Labour, and chatted to them every week in a not very partisan way. There were lots of non-Labour people on it who turned into supporters.
Essentially I don't think most people readily think of themselves as permanent supporters of any party, and if you correspond with them in that spirit they often respond. But comversely if you're rude about them online you're an unprofessional idiot.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
Jeremy Vine tells a good story about Boris. As a guest speaker Boris turns up late, just before he is on, appears hassled, asks who the audience is and asks questions, scribbles stuff on a scrap of paper, gives up, goes on and does a cracking speech.
Jeremy is impressed.
Months later Jeremy is in the same position again with him (and others) waiting for Boris just before he is due to go on stage for a speech. Boris goes through an identical routine.
Jeremy now realises it is an act.
No criticism. He does it well.
PS I have organised a number of big events and always got grilled by the keynote speaker. The most interesting was by a magician who wanted me to identify individuals with specific traits.
Yes, I've heard that story too. There were some more details - about how he started telling exactly the same joke and 'forgot' the punchline in exactly the same place both times. As you say, a performative character, very amusing in roles such as speaker or compere or entertainer, where he couldn't do much harm.
If as a politician, behind the act he'd actually spent hours mastering the detail of his brief and could bring real knowledge, analysis and understanding to what he was doing, you'd almost be prepared to forgive the performative shtick. Sadly the act wasn't a disguise behind which lurked a capable and conscientious genius, but a cover for actual sloppy and casual incompetence, that had allowed him to get away with skipping the real work since his schooldays.
A friend, years ago, attended one of those city dinners. The guest was Vinny Jones. Who did the raffle thing. When they tried to open the raffle tumbler thing, the lock was apparently jammed. So Vinny Jones stomped it to pieces to get the tickets out.
A week or two later the same friend got an invite to another dinner. The guest was Vinny Jones. The stomping was repeated.....
....and the winning ticket was in his pocket both times?
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
Jeremy Vine tells a good story about Boris. As a guest speaker Boris turns up late, just before he is on, appears hassled, asks who the audience is and asks questions, scribbles stuff on a scrap of paper, gives up, goes on and does a cracking speech.
Jeremy is impressed.
Months later Jeremy is in the same position again with him (and others) waiting for Boris just before he is due to go on stage for a speech. Boris goes through an identical routine.
Jeremy now realises it is an act.
No criticism. He does it well.
PS I have organised a number of big events and always got grilled by the keynote speaker. The most interesting was by a magician who wanted me to identify individuals with specific traits.
Yes, I've heard that story too. There were some more details - about how he started telling exactly the same joke and 'forgot' the punchline in exactly the same place both times. As you say, a performative character, very amusing in roles such as speaker or compere or entertainer, where he couldn't do much harm.
And, of itself, nothing much wrong with that. The world would be a greyer place without amusing rogues like Boris.
Where it goes wrong is the other stuff we the public tend to infer from that performance. If we assume that the Borises of this world really are as clever as they pretend to be, we are liable to put them in charge of things, and that has consequences.
See also: political speechmaking. Politicians saying their own stuff tells the audience useful things about the quality of their mind. Politicians reading out lines written by others...rather less so.
Yes, but in his case the bumbling fool act was not a disguise but an accentuation of the reality that he really was a bumbling fool. And someone like that had no place running the country - as pretty much anyone who had know him closely from childhood onwards tried to tell us in advance. But the likes of HY wanted to win next time, no matter the consequences, and so many voters just wanted an end to the Brexit impasse, and were in fear of Corbyn.
Its astonishing that this sort of nonsense is still being pumped out. Regulatory alignment "could" result in 2.2% of additional growth.
If you take the example of AI, for example, it is possible that non alignment with the overly restrictive EU regime "could" create x% of additional growth in the UK (and possibly result in us being taken over by AI, but that is another issue).
Whether we want to align with the EU in any given area is something that is in our discretion. There are some areas where it makes sense to do so. Doing so effectively requires mutual recognition at any given point in time. It is up to both sides to decide whether or not to grant that, whether we have the same regulations or not. If the price of mutual recognition is that we undertake to impose any restriction dreamed up by Brussels in the future it is too high a price to pay.
It's nonsense essentially all the trade experts agree with. Removing trade frictions increases trade, which in turn increases GDP. It won't all happen because the EU won't sign up to it all. But some will
Our law, for all practical purposes, remains EU law but that has not stopped the EU refusing to grant mutual recognition of our standards in agriculture etc. And that is their right, just as it is our right to do the same. Aligned regulation (which we basically have) achieves nothing without this.
The EU want to continue taking a lot of fish out of our waters. They seem to be offering a deal on mutual recognition in exchange. It is for our government to decide if that is a good deal for UK plc or not. As with all deals the devil will be in the detail of what is being given for what.
The point in your first paragraph is that the EU would be required by treaty to accept UK goods on equal basis for as long as the UK is dynamically aligned to their regulations. That is difference from now. The previous government refused to accept alignment but didn't make any moves to move out of alignment because it doesn't make sense to do so. Hence why the whole thing is a mistake.
Dynamic alignment is the worst of all worlds
Worse than actual alignment without reciprocity?
Obviously it would be better to have some say but that ship sailed when people of your persuasion voted to stop having that say.
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Indeed, it became very clear at the Falkirk by election when the Labour candidate promised SNP policies on the two child cap, and so on and so on since. Mr Sarwar on WFP, WASPI women ...
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
Singapore chose English as its main language after independence. Arguably Ireland made the right choice, but yes, you are right that Israel's adoption of Hebrew is total, whereas Irish is confined to a few office doors.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
Why do you make your lies so transparent.
In which fucking universe is a Novotel posh-ish?
When it's soi 4, Klong Toie, Bangkok. Given that you never travel outside Sheffield-Manchester, lol, you wouldn't really understand these things
Novotel is quite a chic brand in Asia, but 4 star rather than 5. So, posh-ish
I don’t wish to humble brag but in the last three years I’ve stayed at, inter alia, Claridge’s, The Berkeley, The Maybourne Riveria, The Ritz Paris, the Waldorf Astoria in Edinburgh.
One assumes your dress sense saw you thrown out of them all?
The best places have no dress code.
I associated dress codes with night clubs which have vodka/RedBull on special.
Not quite. They (dress codes) are a welcome relief and island of certainty in a chaotic world.
Indeed, the power of bespoke tailoring is something most people do not understand.
Enforcing a dress code misses the point though. It's like trying to enforce good manners.
To be honest, I think it was the Ritz, one of the restaurant managers said it was to avoid incidents, they said a female rap star who turned up wearing what was described as a dental floss thin skirt and a nipple patch.
Money cannot buy class.
I never go to the cocktail bar at the Ritz - because people like that stay there.
The bar at the Corinthia is much better.
Only two public bars are worth going to - those at Dukes and the Stafford.
At Dukes you are only allowed two martinis. The last but one time I was there, I had just sat down when a guy from the other side of the room stood up, made to walk towards the door, and fell headfirst into a table on his way.
Dukes has fallen terribly. Since the renovation a few years back, they are selling the place as hard as they can. Used to be like a club.
There was a select band of people who were allowed more than 2 martinis. A friend made it to 3.75, once.
The Stafford is quite good - it hasn't disappeared up its own arse, as Dukes did.
I mean they've all changed. But still I'd take them over other public bars. That said, both the Blue Bar and the bar at the MO are good if you're in that kind of mood.
I think the point I had with Dukes is when they turned away a couple of ladies I know (long time occasionals at Duke's to boot), purely because they weren't looking for a big spending evening. I've seen them do similar to others.
The Corinthia bar has disastrous decor. But the cocktails are very good. And the pianist at the end of the bar has talent.
Its astonishing that this sort of nonsense is still being pumped out. Regulatory alignment "could" result in 2.2% of additional growth.
If you take the example of AI, for example, it is possible that non alignment with the overly restrictive EU regime "could" create x% of additional growth in the UK (and possibly result in us being taken over by AI, but that is another issue).
Whether we want to align with the EU in any given area is something that is in our discretion. There are some areas where it makes sense to do so. Doing so effectively requires mutual recognition at any given point in time. It is up to both sides to decide whether or not to grant that, whether we have the same regulations or not. If the price of mutual recognition is that we undertake to impose any restriction dreamed up by Brussels in the future it is too high a price to pay.
It's nonsense essentially all the trade experts agree with. Removing trade frictions increases trade, which in turn increases GDP. It won't all happen because the EU won't sign up to it all. But some will
There isn’t a neat correlation between wealth and trade. Some of the poorest countries do a lot of trade as a percentage of GDP and some of the richest do less.
Well: there is a very clear positive correlation between country size and amount of trade.
The smaller the country, the less likely they are to be able to do produce everything themselves. So you need to control for that.
Ultimately, you have to ask yourself a question: is the government the best arbiter of where you spend your money, or should people (as much as possible) be allowed to make their own decisions?
For humour value, I asked ChatGPT to list the 10 countries where trade was the highest proportion of GDP. You will be staggered to learn that none are poor, and 8 of the 10 are among the richest countries in the world.
A relative, who runs a building company, just asked ChatGPT to describe his company, as test
ChatGPT informed him that his company is run by a famous 18th/19th century master builder/developer.
So, you're saying your friend depends on a Ouiji board?
Probably more value added than some of the boards I have worked with!
hhmmmm
{Engage 18th pamphlet mode}
"The Advantage To The Publick Of The Employment Of Deceased Engineers Of Eminence Upon The Boards Of Companies"
- Never voting for higher executive compensation - Never voting for finacialisation of the company - ....
EDIT: The relative in question has opined that most Boards are made from indifferent chipboard of the lowest quality. They go to pieces at a touch....
FPT: The President Must vs the rule of law clash is coming to a head more quickly than I expected.
He has 2 court rulings stopping allegedly illegal access to state records in in its tracks whilst the Courts consider - one from an Obama appointed judge, and one from a Regan appointee. His GOGEy setup is getting a its wings clipped.
MAGA peeps are going for the the Obama appointee, and demanded that he be impeached, and that he be allowed to do whatever he wants. But not the other one.
He's going to get his wings and his balls clipped if he does not watch it.
Of all the marks of fascism, the 'ignoring the rule of law' one (governments obey court orders) IMHO is the most significant at the moment for the USA. An irresisible force meets an immoveable object right there, and it can't be hidden for long where there is a free media. Others can be fudged or done gradually or complexified. This can't.
On one of the Bulwark podcasts they other day they were saying the problem is that if the court ruling is ignored the next step is a contempt ruling and then the use of US Marshalls to take offender into custody (if necessary to stop further contempt). Marshalls are under DoJ which is now totally Trump 2.0 controlled.
US is headed (only one month in!!!) to worst constitutional crisis in decades if not longer.
“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”
On bat tunnels, jumping spiders and European Union Law, there are two main pieces of UK legislation that govern the protection of species, The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, and more importantly in a recent context (because we were still able to build things in the 80s and 90s), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations of 2017.
Both were implemented in order to enshrine EU law, despite the fact that in 2017, we'd already voted to leave.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 enshrined the Birds Directive and the Bern Convention into UK law. It was enacted primarily to implement these European Council Directives: 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Bern Convention, which focuses on the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 implements guidelines from the European Union's Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) specifically within the UK context.
This regulation applies to anyone planning land or property development projects and requires compliance with strict parameters, such as conducting appropriate ecology surveys and obtaining a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) when necessary.
It also mandates that any plan or project proposal affecting a European site must undergo a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to ensure it does not significantly harm the designated features of the site.
The regulation is enforced by various organisations including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and Natural England, among others.
Hopefully this helps some PBers who have been in denial over this issue.
Stanley Johnson (dad of Boris) had a lot to do with the Birds Directive. Quite a hero to many in conservstion. His influence and example probably accounts for the distinctly green tinge of Boris's pronouncements which is one of his saving graces (along with the humour and writing ability).
Yes, he did always seem a rather poisonous old twat, and I agree he was probably responsible for many of the deep flaws in Johnson's premiership.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
Singapore chose English as its main language after independence. Arguably Ireland made the right choice, but yes, you are right that Israel's adoption of Hebrew is total, whereas Irish is confined to a few office doors.
ETA the Irish call their language Irish.
Population that consider English as their "spoken at home" language at each Singapore Census:
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
Why do you make your lies so transparent.
In which fucking universe is a Novotel posh-ish?
When it's soi 4, Klong Toie, Bangkok. Given that you never travel outside Sheffield-Manchester, lol, you wouldn't really understand these things
Novotel is quite a chic brand in Asia, but 4 star rather than 5. So, posh-ish
I don’t wish to humble brag but in the last three years I’ve stayed at, inter alia, Claridge’s, The Berkeley, The Maybourne Riveria, The Ritz Paris, the Waldorf Astoria in Edinburgh.
One assumes your dress sense saw you thrown out of them all?
The best places have no dress code.
I associated dress codes with night clubs which have vodka/RedBull on special.
Not quite. They (dress codes) are a welcome relief and island of certainty in a chaotic world.
Indeed, the power of bespoke tailoring is something most people do not understand.
Enforcing a dress code misses the point though. It's like trying to enforce good manners.
To be honest, I think it was the Ritz, one of the restaurant managers said it was to avoid incidents, they said a female rap star who turned up wearing what was described as a dental floss thin skirt and a nipple patch.
Money cannot buy class.
I never go to the cocktail bar at the Ritz - because people like that stay there.
The bar at the Corinthia is much better.
Only two public bars are worth going to - those at Dukes and the Stafford.
At Dukes you are only allowed two martinis. The last but one time I was there, I had just sat down when a guy from the other side of the room stood up, made to walk towards the door, and fell headfirst into a table on his way.
Dukes has fallen terribly. Since the renovation a few years back, they are selling the place as hard as they can. Used to be like a club.
There was a select band of people who were allowed more than 2 martinis. A friend made it to 3.75, once.
The Stafford is quite good - it hasn't disappeared up its own arse, as Dukes did.
I mean they've all changed. But still I'd take them over other public bars. That said, both the Blue Bar and the bar at the MO are good if you're in that kind of mood.
I think the point I had with Dukes is when they turned away a couple of ladies I know (long time occasionals at Duke's to boot), purely because they weren't looking for a big spending evening. I've seen them do similar to others.
The Corinthia bar has disastrous decor. But the cocktails are very good. And the pianist at the end of the bar has talent.
How the other half live!
And a belated Good Morning to everyone.
Actually, fine cocktails can be the cheap option.
£18 each is about the pace. Two will sink the battleships of most here. You get complimentary nuts and olives (or snacks of that type).
So £40 and out. As an after theatre/film thing, it has much to recommend it.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
Essentially I don't think most people readily think of themselves as permanent supporters of any party, and if you correspond with them in that spirit they often respond. But comversely if you're rude about them online you're an unprofessional idiot...
Which is as good a reason as any for sacking the minister. Irrespective of the views of our free speech absolutist anti-wokers.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
So has immigration since Brexit:
a) risen b) fallen c) stayed around the same level.
Immigration rose considerably as a result of the elected Government's decision to raise it. Partly as a result, that party suffered its worst electoral defeat in living memory, the current Government is struggling with the issue, and if it fails, it is likely that a Government will be elected with a mandate to take a far harder line on the issue. That's how it works when you have a democracy.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
Why do you make your lies so transparent.
In which fucking universe is a Novotel posh-ish?
When it's soi 4, Klong Toie, Bangkok. Given that you never travel outside Sheffield-Manchester, lol, you wouldn't really understand these things
Novotel is quite a chic brand in Asia, but 4 star rather than 5. So, posh-ish
I don’t wish to humble brag but in the last three years I’ve stayed at, inter alia, Claridge’s, The Berkeley, The Maybourne Riveria, The Ritz Paris, the Waldorf Astoria in Edinburgh.
One assumes your dress sense saw you thrown out of them all?
The best places have no dress code.
I associated dress codes with night clubs which have vodka/RedBull on special.
Not quite. They (dress codes) are a welcome relief and island of certainty in a chaotic world.
Indeed, the power of bespoke tailoring is something most people do not understand.
Enforcing a dress code misses the point though. It's like trying to enforce good manners.
To be honest, I think it was the Ritz, one of the restaurant managers said it was to avoid incidents, they said a female rap star who turned up wearing what was described as a dental floss thin skirt and a nipple patch.
Money cannot buy class.
I never go to the cocktail bar at the Ritz - because people like that stay there.
The bar at the Corinthia is much better.
Only two public bars are worth going to - those at Dukes and the Stafford.
At Dukes you are only allowed two martinis. The last but one time I was there, I had just sat down when a guy from the other side of the room stood up, made to walk towards the door, and fell headfirst into a table on his way.
Dukes has fallen terribly. Since the renovation a few years back, they are selling the place as hard as they can. Used to be like a club.
There was a select band of people who were allowed more than 2 martinis. A friend made it to 3.75, once.
The Stafford is quite good - it hasn't disappeared up its own arse, as Dukes did.
I mean they've all changed. But still I'd take them over other public bars. That said, both the Blue Bar and the bar at the MO are good if you're in that kind of mood.
I think the point I had with Dukes is when they turned away a couple of ladies I know (long time occasionals at Duke's to boot), purely because they weren't looking for a big spending evening. I've seen them do similar to others.
The Corinthia bar has disastrous decor. But the cocktails are very good. And the pianist at the end of the bar has talent.
On bat tunnels, jumping spiders and European Union Law, there are two main pieces of UK legislation that govern the protection of species, The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, and more importantly in a recent context (because we were still able to build things in the 80s and 90s), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations of 2017.
Both were implemented in order to enshrine EU law, despite the fact that in 2017, we'd already voted to leave.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 enshrined the Birds Directive and the Bern Convention into UK law. It was enacted primarily to implement these European Council Directives: 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Bern Convention, which focuses on the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 implements guidelines from the European Union's Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) specifically within the UK context.
This regulation applies to anyone planning land or property development projects and requires compliance with strict parameters, such as conducting appropriate ecology surveys and obtaining a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) when necessary.
It also mandates that any plan or project proposal affecting a European site must undergo a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to ensure it does not significantly harm the designated features of the site.
The regulation is enforced by various organisations including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and Natural England, among others.
Hopefully this helps some PBers who have been in denial over this issue.
I did miss it on the previous thread and almost missed it here as well. If I had of done it would not have been intentional.
I appreciate the effort in you replying in detail. Most wouldn't.
a) As you point out we had left in 2017 so we are not implementing an EU law, but implementing our own law. Presumably because those in power (right or wrong) thought the EU law a good law to copy and implement. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the EU. To argue otherwise is nut, because we didn't need to implement it and we did. Do we not implement laws that other countries have just because they have them? Really? I believe murder is against the law in most EU countries and it is against the law here as well. Shall we repeal it then because they have it? No of course not.
So we didn't have to implement it in 2017 and yet we did. So not a consequence of being in the EU then. It is not beyond us to implement bad laws (not that I know this is one) without having to blame the EU.
b) Now laws we implemented when we were in the EU (because I can't use the argument above on them) that you reference. Can you actually point out the 1981 EU wording and compare it to what we put into law and what you find reprehensible about it?
I'm sorry but as I pointed out before Boris tried this trick at the Treasury Select Committee and unfortunately for him when he quoted a bunch of these EU laws committee members were prepared for him and took him apart. A lot of it was on the rules on coffins I believe. This resulted in the famous quote which I can't be bothered to look up but paraphrasing:
'That is all very well Boris, but none of it is actually true is it'.
It is a committee meeting worth watching and is on the internet. Andrew Tyrie made the quote. Boris made a complete arse of himself on the very topic of us implementing EU laws.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
So has immigration since Brexit:
a) risen b) fallen c) stayed around the same level.
Immigration rose considerably as a result of the elected Government's decision to raise it. Partly as a result, that party suffered its worst electoral defeat in living memory, the current Government is struggling with the issue, and if it fails, it is likely that a Government will be elected with a mandate to take a far harder line on the issue. That's how it works when you have a democracy.
Very funny. The Cons oversaw a huge rise in immigration so the country voted in......
...
...
The Labour Party. Noted for its anti-immigration stance.
I think the root cause is you are upset at the quality and decisions of British politicians. Can't fault the thinking, but for some absurd reason you then go on to blame the EU.
We've been out of the EU for years now. How much longer do you plan to hold it responsible for our ills.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
No, that honour goes to when Leon and MaxPB bemoaned their British Airways tiers.
What a bunch of peasants, I mean who flies commercial or uses BA when you can use Emirates.
still grateful to my colleague who was covering for the normal travel admin, she insisted that the only flight that worked with my schedule for a business trip was with Emirates. Experience was only slightly marred by a full view of James Blunt's arse crack as he bent down to pick up his guitar in front of me as we were boarding.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
Why do you make your lies so transparent.
In which fucking universe is a Novotel posh-ish?
When it's soi 4, Klong Toie, Bangkok. Given that you never travel outside Sheffield-Manchester, lol, you wouldn't really understand these things
Novotel is quite a chic brand in Asia, but 4 star rather than 5. So, posh-ish
I don’t wish to humble brag but in the last three years I’ve stayed at, inter alia, Claridge’s, The Berkeley, The Maybourne Riveria, The Ritz Paris, the Waldorf Astoria in Edinburgh.
One assumes your dress sense saw you thrown out of them all?
The best places have no dress code.
I associated dress codes with night clubs which have vodka/RedBull on special.
Not quite. They (dress codes) are a welcome relief and island of certainty in a chaotic world.
Indeed, the power of bespoke tailoring is something most people do not understand.
Enforcing a dress code misses the point though. It's like trying to enforce good manners.
To be honest, I think it was the Ritz, one of the restaurant managers said it was to avoid incidents, they said a female rap star who turned up wearing what was described as a dental floss thin skirt and a nipple patch.
Money cannot buy class.
I never go to the cocktail bar at the Ritz - because people like that stay there.
The bar at the Corinthia is much better.
Only two public bars are worth going to - those at Dukes and the Stafford.
At Dukes you are only allowed two martinis. The last but one time I was there, I had just sat down when a guy from the other side of the room stood up, made to walk towards the door, and fell headfirst into a table on his way.
Dukes has fallen terribly. Since the renovation a few years back, they are selling the place as hard as they can. Used to be like a club.
There was a select band of people who were allowed more than 2 martinis. A friend made it to 3.75, once.
The Stafford is quite good - it hasn't disappeared up its own arse, as Dukes did.
I mean they've all changed. But still I'd take them over other public bars. That said, both the Blue Bar and the bar at the MO are good if you're in that kind of mood.
I think the point I had with Dukes is when they turned away a couple of ladies I know (long time occasionals at Duke's to boot), purely because they weren't looking for a big spending evening. I've seen them do similar to others.
The Corinthia bar has disastrous decor. But the cocktails are very good. And the pianist at the end of the bar has talent.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
Jeremy Vine tells a good story about Boris. As a guest speaker Boris turns up late, just before he is on, appears hassled, asks who the audience is and asks questions, scribbles stuff on a scrap of paper, gives up, goes on and does a cracking speech.
Jeremy is impressed.
Months later Jeremy is in the same position again with him (and others) waiting for Boris just before he is due to go on stage for a speech. Boris goes through an identical routine.
Jeremy now realises it is an act.
No criticism. He does it well.
PS I have organised a number of big events and always got grilled by the keynote speaker. The most interesting was by a magician who wanted me to identify individuals with specific traits.
Yes, I've heard that story too. There were some more details - about how he started telling exactly the same joke and 'forgot' the punchline in exactly the same place both times. As you say, a performative character, very amusing in roles such as speaker or compere or entertainer, where he couldn't do much harm.
And, of itself, nothing much wrong with that. The world would be a greyer place without amusing rogues like Boris.
Where it goes wrong is the other stuff we the public tend to infer from that performance. If we assume that the Borises of this world really are as clever as they pretend to be, we are liable to put them in charge of things, and that has consequences.
See also: political speechmaking. Politicians saying their own stuff tells the audience useful things about the quality of their mind. Politicians reading out lines written by others...rather less so.
Yes, but in his case the bumbling fool act was not a disguise but an accentuation of the reality that he really was a bumbling fool. And someone like that had no place running the country - as pretty much anyone who had know him closely from childhood onwards tried to tell us in advance. But the likes of HY wanted to win next time, no matter the consequences, and so many voters just wanted an end to the Brexit impasse, and were in fear of Corbyn.
Yes and no.
It's one of the things that Cummings got right (he was always better at saying what was wrong rather than coming up with solutions.) 99 percent of the time, Boris is utterly bumbling and useless. But for the 1 percent of the time where it connects to something Boris wants (usually adulation), he is utterly ruthless and totally cynically effective.
Then the bumbling Boris thing helps him, because it acts as a disguise. We can't process the concept that he is playing us all like fiddles to his own ends, becuase someone that shambolic can't be capable of that. It's not a morally admirable trait, but he has done what he has done very well. It won him an election. It's just that the prize (getting to run the country) was one he couldn't cope with.
On bat tunnels, jumping spiders and European Union Law, there are two main pieces of UK legislation that govern the protection of species, The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, and more importantly in a recent context (because we were still able to build things in the 80s and 90s), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations of 2017.
Both were implemented in order to enshrine EU law, despite the fact that in 2017, we'd already voted to leave.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 enshrined the Birds Directive and the Bern Convention into UK law. It was enacted primarily to implement these European Council Directives: 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Bern Convention, which focuses on the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 implements guidelines from the European Union's Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) specifically within the UK context.
This regulation applies to anyone planning land or property development projects and requires compliance with strict parameters, such as conducting appropriate ecology surveys and obtaining a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) when necessary.
It also mandates that any plan or project proposal affecting a European site must undergo a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to ensure it does not significantly harm the designated features of the site.
The regulation is enforced by various organisations including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and Natural England, among others.
Hopefully this helps some PBers who have been in denial over this issue.
I did miss it on the previous thread and almost missed it here as well. If I had of done it would not have been intentional.
I appreciate the effort in you replying in detail. Most wouldn't.
a) As you point out we had left in 2017 so we are not implementing an EU law, but implementing our own law. Presumably because those in power (right or wrong) thought the EU law a good law to copy and implement. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the EU. To argue otherwise is nut, because we didn't need to implement it and we did. Do we not implement laws that other countries have just because they have them? Really? I believe murder is against the law in most EU countries and it is against the law here as well. Shall we repeal it then because they have it? No of course not.
So we didn't have to implement it in 2017 and yet we did. So not a consequence of being in the EU then. It is not beyond us to implement bad laws (not that I know this is one) without having to blame the EU.
b) Now laws we implemented when we were in the EU (because I can't use the argument above on them) that you reference. Can you actually point out the 1981 EU wording and compare it to what we put into law and what you find reprehensible about it?
I'm sorry but as I pointed out before Boris tried this trick at the Treasury Select Committee and unfortunately for him when he quoted a bunch of these EU laws committee members were prepared for him and took him apart. A lot of it was on the rules on coffins I believe. This resulted in the famous quote which I can't be bothered to look up but paraphrasing:
'That is all very well Boris, but none of it is actually true is it'.
It is a committee meeting worth watching and is on the internet. Andrew Tyrie made the quote. Boris made a complete arse of himself on the very topic of us implementing EU laws.
We had voted to leave in 2016. We were still members of the EU until the 31st of January 2020. If you're arguing that the British state relished the gold-plating of EU law and always took a maximalist approach, I'd agree, but to claim that the adoption of this law, which was a requirement of member states, had nothing to do with the EU, as you have in bold, is simply absurd.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
One of those targets where being serious about meeting them makes a huge difference.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
“This section applies the law outlined in Chagos to the creation of the SBA. A comparison between the two is appropriate because, in both cases, a part of a colony was separated before independence in order to create a military base under British sovereignty that remains in operation today. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged from the outset that there are differences between how this happened in each instance. These differences suggest that the RoC will find it more difficult than Mauritius, albeit not impossible, to challenge the legality of the separation of its territory. This section focuses on four such differences. First, while Mauritius achieved independence in 1968 – at a time when the existence of the right to self-determination was virtually undisputed – the RoC was created in August 1960, four months before the passing of Resolution 1514 [the UN resolution on which the Chagos decision was based]. Second, Chagos was separated from Mauritius without any consultation with the local population. Conversely, the separation of the SBA was preceded by intense negotiations and a general election. Third, while Mauritians agreed to Chagos’ separation and their independence without any support from third states, Greece and Turkey were actively involved in the negotiations for the independence of the Republic and the creation of the SBA. Fourth, the separation of Chagos from Mauritius became possible through the forced displacement of some 2,000 Chagossians.[98] Nothing similar happened in Cyprus.”
Can you see anything there, amongst the bowls of spaghetti thrown at the wall, that will actually survive contact with UN courts and assembly in the 2020s and 2030s?
All the references to historical precedents, 60s, 50s, I would straight away put a line through, becuase what we done in 1965 was supposed to legally compliant, but it was tick in the box from a different world - bottom line what gets a “internationally legal” tick in 1965 is being looked at again and differently in the 21st century.
Why? How the UN is gamed - lawfare the legal term I think, generating legal problems - Putin sponsored and helped Mauritius campaign for Chagos deal. But good old fashioned politics, where adversaries look to knee cap each other at UN, must be the great game since human race began. What is different now is how the world inevitably has changed over 60 years - decreased influence for some, increased influence for others - where India threw its weight behind Mauritius campaign.
Not necessarily the pressure of the UN and international law alone becoming untenable, might have made UK government U-turn in 2022 and negotiate for the last 2 years to this deal, but influential superpowers in a region saying “look at those UN rulings being abused! Good old fashioned British colonial arrogance! no fair deal for our Mauritius friends, no cooperation with UK in this region.”
At the very very least damage with the precedent of Chagos deal, UK moves from surety to a large question mark over Cyprus, Falklands and others. We are certainly now encouraging enemies, chancers, turncoat British lawyers who hate UKs history, to wield the precedent and give it a go, are we not?
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
Jeremy Vine tells a good story about Boris. As a guest speaker Boris turns up late, just before he is on, appears hassled, asks who the audience is and asks questions, scribbles stuff on a scrap of paper, gives up, goes on and does a cracking speech.
Jeremy is impressed.
Months later Jeremy is in the same position again with him (and others) waiting for Boris just before he is due to go on stage for a speech. Boris goes through an identical routine.
Jeremy now realises it is an act.
No criticism. He does it well.
PS I have organised a number of big events and always got grilled by the keynote speaker. The most interesting was by a magician who wanted me to identify individuals with specific traits.
Yes, I've heard that story too. There were some more details - about how he started telling exactly the same joke and 'forgot' the punchline in exactly the same place both times. As you say, a performative character, very amusing in roles such as speaker or compere or entertainer, where he couldn't do much harm.
And, of itself, nothing much wrong with that. The world would be a greyer place without amusing rogues like Boris.
Where it goes wrong is the other stuff we the public tend to infer from that performance. If we assume that the Borises of this world really are as clever as they pretend to be, we are liable to put them in charge of things, and that has consequences.
See also: political speechmaking. Politicians saying their own stuff tells the audience useful things about the quality of their mind. Politicians reading out lines written by others...rather less so.
Yes, but in his case the bumbling fool act was not a disguise but an accentuation of the reality that he really was a bumbling fool. And someone like that had no place running the country - as pretty much anyone who had know him closely from childhood onwards tried to tell us in advance. But the likes of HY wanted to win next time, no matter the consequences, and so many voters just wanted an end to the Brexit impasse, and were in fear of Corbyn.
Yes and no.
It's one of the things that Cummings got right (he was always better at saying what was wrong rather than coming up with solutions.) 99 percent of the time, Boris is utterly bumbling and useless. But for the 1 percent of the time where it connects to something Boris wants (usually adulation), he is utterly ruthless and totally cynically effective.
Then the bumbling Boris thing helps him, because it acts as a disguise. We can't process the concept that he is playing us all like fiddles to his own ends, becuase someone that shambolic can't be capable of that. It's not a morally admirable trait, but he has done what he has done very well. It won him an election. It's just that the prize (getting to run the country) was one he couldn't cope with.
To use his own words, as recently alleged, he f***ed it all up.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
I think to an extent all politicians are characters. They have to be. Who we are in private is likely going to be a bit different to the public appearance. This is at the heart of the Whatsapp issues - people blow off steam, say mean/offensive things etc all the time, but not in public. When it gets out then people get very upset (or in some cases get performatively upset). I think Gordon Brown genuinely did think that he had had tea with a bigot and said so. He would never have said that knowingly on camera. So yes Johnson uses Boris as an act. Fine. But Starmer is also playing a character. They all are.
Jeremy Vine tells a good story about Boris. As a guest speaker Boris turns up late, just before he is on, appears hassled, asks who the audience is and asks questions, scribbles stuff on a scrap of paper, gives up, goes on and does a cracking speech.
Jeremy is impressed.
Months later Jeremy is in the same position again with him (and others) waiting for Boris just before he is due to go on stage for a speech. Boris goes through an identical routine.
Jeremy now realises it is an act.
No criticism. He does it well.
PS I have organised a number of big events and always got grilled by the keynote speaker. The most interesting was by a magician who wanted me to identify individuals with specific traits.
Yes, I've heard that story too. There were some more details - about how he started telling exactly the same joke and 'forgot' the punchline in exactly the same place both times. As you say, a performative character, very amusing in roles such as speaker or compere or entertainer, where he couldn't do much harm.
And, of itself, nothing much wrong with that. The world would be a greyer place without amusing rogues like Boris.
Where it goes wrong is the other stuff we the public tend to infer from that performance. If we assume that the Borises of this world really are as clever as they pretend to be, we are liable to put them in charge of things, and that has consequences.
See also: political speechmaking. Politicians saying their own stuff tells the audience useful things about the quality of their mind. Politicians reading out lines written by others...rather less so.
Yes, but in his case the bumbling fool act was not a disguise but an accentuation of the reality that he really was a bumbling fool. And someone like that had no place running the country - as pretty much anyone who had know him closely from childhood onwards tried to tell us in advance. But the likes of HY wanted to win next time, no matter the consequences, and so many voters just wanted an end to the Brexit impasse, and were in fear of Corbyn.
Yes and no.
It's one of the things that Cummings got right (he was always better at saying what was wrong rather than coming up with solutions.) 99 percent of the time, Boris is utterly bumbling and useless. But for the 1 percent of the time where it connects to something Boris wants (usually adulation), he is utterly ruthless and totally cynically effective.
Then the bumbling Boris thing helps him, because it acts as a disguise. We can't process the concept that he is playing us all like fiddles to his own ends, becuase someone that shambolic can't be capable of that. It's not a morally admirable trait, but he has done what he has done very well. It won him an election. It's just that the prize (getting to run the country) was one he couldn't cope with.
To use his own words, as recently alleged, he f***ed it all up.
You suffer from the same sense of humour failure as Cummings.
On bat tunnels, jumping spiders and European Union Law, there are two main pieces of UK legislation that govern the protection of species, The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, and more importantly in a recent context (because we were still able to build things in the 80s and 90s), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations of 2017.
Both were implemented in order to enshrine EU law, despite the fact that in 2017, we'd already voted to leave.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 enshrined the Birds Directive and the Bern Convention into UK law. It was enacted primarily to implement these European Council Directives: 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Bern Convention, which focuses on the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 implements guidelines from the European Union's Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) specifically within the UK context.
This regulation applies to anyone planning land or property development projects and requires compliance with strict parameters, such as conducting appropriate ecology surveys and obtaining a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) when necessary.
It also mandates that any plan or project proposal affecting a European site must undergo a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to ensure it does not significantly harm the designated features of the site.
The regulation is enforced by various organisations including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and Natural England, among others.
Hopefully this helps some PBers who have been in denial over this issue.
I did miss it on the previous thread and almost missed it here as well. If I had of done it would not have been intentional.
I appreciate the effort in you replying in detail. Most wouldn't.
a) As you point out we had left in 2017 so we are not implementing an EU law, but implementing our own law. Presumably because those in power (right or wrong) thought the EU law a good law to copy and implement. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the EU. To argue otherwise is nut, because we didn't need to implement it and we did. Do we not implement laws that other countries have just because they have them? Really? I believe murder is against the law in most EU countries and it is against the law here as well. Shall we repeal it then because they have it? No of course not.
So we didn't have to implement it in 2017 and yet we did. So not a consequence of being in the EU then. It is not beyond us to implement bad laws (not that I know this is one) without having to blame the EU.
b) Now laws we implemented when we were in the EU (because I can't use the argument above on them) that you reference. Can you actually point out the 1981 EU wording and compare it to what we put into law and what you find reprehensible about it?
I'm sorry but as I pointed out before Boris tried this trick at the Treasury Select Committee and unfortunately for him when he quoted a bunch of these EU laws committee members were prepared for him and took him apart. A lot of it was on the rules on coffins I believe. This resulted in the famous quote which I can't be bothered to look up but paraphrasing:
'That is all very well Boris, but none of it is actually true is it'.
It is a committee meeting worth watching and is on the internet. Andrew Tyrie made the quote. Boris made a complete arse of himself on the very topic of us implementing EU laws.
We had voted to leave in 2016. We were still members of the EU until the 31st of January 2020. If you're arguing that the British state relished the gold-plating of EU law and always took a maximalist approach, I'd agree, but to claim that the adoption of this law, which was a requirement of member states, had nothing to do with the EU, as you have in bold, is simply absurd.
Thanks for that reply @Luckyguy1983. Good point, but it is not really absurd. We did not have to do it. Nobody was going to do anything about it if we didn't and why didn't we repeal it on leaving. I understand the irony of that point, as it is the one you are constantly making, but do you ever think why not? Why haven't we? Well because the vast majority of the EU laws, which make up only a very, very small percentage of our laws are sensible and ones we would implement ourselves independently.
Re gold plating - I agree.
Now come on, you have dealt with one of my points very well, so what about the rest? Answer them please.
Blaming the EU for £100m bat tunnel is a cop out. We have a whole host of idiots in the UK to blame for duff decisions and duff laws without having to blame French and German idiots. They were a convenient scapegoat while we were in the EU. Not anymore.
Have you seen Boris giving evidence to the committee? Not sure you would feel so confident in your position if you had. I highly recommend a viewing. Easy to find on the internet.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
One of those targets where being serious about meeting them makes a huge difference.
Surely, to do this, would require screening on a massive scale - including border screenings?
No, that honour goes to when Leon and MaxPB bemoaned their British Airways tiers.
What a bunch of peasants, I mean who flies commercial or uses BA when you can use Emirates.
still grateful to my colleague who was covering for the normal travel admin, she insisted that the only flight that worked with my schedule for a business trip was with Emirates. Experience was only slightly marred by a full view of James Blunt's arse crack as he bent down to pick up his guitar in front of me as we were boarding.
One thing my university doesn't seem to appreciate is that the policy of only advertising for new admin staff when the old one has already left (and getting us to do our own admin in the period) has the side effect that, being bad at this stuff, we don't always manage to find the cheapest flights. I, for example, am very bad at spotting flights that leave very early or arrive very late and I have some kind of sight issue that prevents me seeing flights operated by Ryanair
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I know it will cause cognitive dissonance on the right but immigration is falling significantly under Labour.....
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I know it will cause cognitive dissonance on the right but immigration is falling significantly under Labour.....
Gross or net? A net fall is only to be expected, given the mass exodus of millionaires
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
If immigration is a factor, don't you think there will be an increase in (ghastly phrase) HIV treatment tourism in the new Trump world order? Admittedly most of the the poor sods who'll suffer from the destruction of the AIDs programmes will have neither the health or the wealth to do much migrating, but as we've seen desperation can make people make extraordinary journeys.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
So has immigration since Brexit:
a) risen b) fallen c) stayed around the same level.
Immigration rose considerably as a result of the elected Government's decision to raise it. Partly as a result, that party suffered its worst electoral defeat in living memory, the current Government is struggling with the issue, and if it fails, it is likely that a Government will be elected with a mandate to take a far harder line on the issue. That's how it works when you have a democracy.
Very funny. The Cons oversaw a huge rise in immigration so the country voted in......
...
...
The Labour Party. Noted for its anti-immigration stance.
I think the root cause is you are upset at the quality and decisions of British politicians. Can't fault the thinking, but for some absurd reason you then go on to blame the EU.
We've been out of the EU for years now. How much longer do you plan to hold it responsible for our ills.
The Cons ended EU free movement and raised the wage requirement for non EU immigrants and their dependents under Rishi
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
So has immigration since Brexit:
a) risen b) fallen c) stayed around the same level.
Immigration rose considerably as a result of the elected Government's decision to raise it. Partly as a result, that party suffered its worst electoral defeat in living memory, the current Government is struggling with the issue, and if it fails, it is likely that a Government will be elected with a mandate to take a far harder line on the issue. That's how it works when you have a democracy.
Very funny. The Cons oversaw a huge rise in immigration so the country voted in......
...
...
The Labour Party. Noted for its anti-immigration stance.
I think the root cause is you are upset at the quality and decisions of British politicians. Can't fault the thinking, but for some absurd reason you then go on to blame the EU.
We've been out of the EU for years now. How much longer do you plan to hold it responsible for our ills.
The Cons ended EU free movement and raised the wage requirement for non EU immigrants and their dependents under Rishi
So did immigration rise or fall after we left the EU.
On bat tunnels, jumping spiders and European Union Law, there are two main pieces of UK legislation that govern the protection of species, The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981, and more importantly in a recent context (because we were still able to build things in the 80s and 90s), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations of 2017.
Both were implemented in order to enshrine EU law, despite the fact that in 2017, we'd already voted to leave.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 enshrined the Birds Directive and the Bern Convention into UK law. It was enacted primarily to implement these European Council Directives: 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds and the Bern Convention, which focuses on the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 implements guidelines from the European Union's Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) specifically within the UK context.
This regulation applies to anyone planning land or property development projects and requires compliance with strict parameters, such as conducting appropriate ecology surveys and obtaining a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) when necessary.
It also mandates that any plan or project proposal affecting a European site must undergo a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) to ensure it does not significantly harm the designated features of the site.
The regulation is enforced by various organisations including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and Natural England, among others.
Hopefully this helps some PBers who have been in denial over this issue.
I did miss it on the previous thread and almost missed it here as well. If I had of done it would not have been intentional.
I appreciate the effort in you replying in detail. Most wouldn't.
a) As you point out we had left in 2017 so we are not implementing an EU law, but implementing our own law. Presumably because those in power (right or wrong) thought the EU law a good law to copy and implement. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the EU. To argue otherwise is nut, because we didn't need to implement it and we did. Do we not implement laws that other countries have just because they have them? Really? I believe murder is against the law in most EU countries and it is against the law here as well. Shall we repeal it then because they have it? No of course not.
So we didn't have to implement it in 2017 and yet we did. So not a consequence of being in the EU then. It is not beyond us to implement bad laws (not that I know this is one) without having to blame the EU.
b) Now laws we implemented when we were in the EU (because I can't use the argument above on them) that you reference. Can you actually point out the 1981 EU wording and compare it to what we put into law and what you find reprehensible about it?
I'm sorry but as I pointed out before Boris tried this trick at the Treasury Select Committee and unfortunately for him when he quoted a bunch of these EU laws committee members were prepared for him and took him apart. A lot of it was on the rules on coffins I believe. This resulted in the famous quote which I can't be bothered to look up but paraphrasing:
'That is all very well Boris, but none of it is actually true is it'.
It is a committee meeting worth watching and is on the internet. Andrew Tyrie made the quote. Boris made a complete arse of himself on the very topic of us implementing EU laws.
We had voted to leave in 2016. We were still members of the EU until the 31st of January 2020. If you're arguing that the British state relished the gold-plating of EU law and always took a maximalist approach, I'd agree, but to claim that the adoption of this law, which was a requirement of member states, had nothing to do with the EU, as you have in bold, is simply absurd.
Thanks for that reply @Luckyguy1983. Good point, but it is not really absurd. We did not have to do it. Nobody was going to do anything about it if we didn't and why didn't we repeal it on leaving. I understand the irony of that point, as it is the one you are constantly making, but do you ever think why not? Why haven't we? Well because the vast majority of the EU laws, which make up only a very, very small percentage of our laws are sensible and ones we would implement ourselves independently.
Re gold plating - I agree.
Now come on, you have dealt with one of my points very well, so what about the rest? Answer them please.
Blaming the EU for £100m bat tunnel is a cop out. We have a whole host of idiots in the UK to blame for duff decisions and duff laws without having to blame French and German idiots. They were a convenient scapegoat while we were in the EU. Not anymore.
Have you seen Boris giving evidence to the committee? Not sure you would feel so confident in your position if you had. I highly recommend a viewing. Easy to find on the internet.
PS Just for the information of anyone sad enough to want to read our chat I didn't bold/highlight the bit about not being in the EU. @Luckyguy1983 did to highlight the bit he was referring to as being an error.
I also wanted to thank @Luckyguy1983 because it is pleasant to have a chat where we disagree strongly, but do it pleasantly.
Does anyone still give a crap about Lenin ? I appreciate the spirit, but even the movie reference is dated.
"Goodbye, Russia. Goodbye, Lenin," said Lithuania's President Gitanas Nausėda after the Baltic states disconnected from Russia's energy system. "This is a historic moment, marking the end of a long journey. We've achieved full energy independence. The era of pressure and blackmail is over." https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1888625125232177226
Some of you may remember Adam Curtis, the OG of what-does-it-all-mean explainers, before YouTube was swamped with rip-offs. A few years he had an interview with Russell Brand. Somebody had the genius idea of editing out the ums, ahs, and Russell Brand himself. The result comes across as a stream-of-consciousness of Curtis, which is oddly hypnotic if a bit difficult. It's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHC4NNScEI
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
So has immigration since Brexit:
a) risen b) fallen c) stayed around the same level.
Immigration rose considerably as a result of the elected Government's decision to raise it. Partly as a result, that party suffered its worst electoral defeat in living memory, the current Government is struggling with the issue, and if it fails, it is likely that a Government will be elected with a mandate to take a far harder line on the issue. That's how it works when you have a democracy.
Very funny. The Cons oversaw a huge rise in immigration so the country voted in......
...
...
The Labour Party. Noted for its anti-immigration stance.
I think the root cause is you are upset at the quality and decisions of British politicians. Can't fault the thinking, but for some absurd reason you then go on to blame the EU.
We've been out of the EU for years now. How much longer do you plan to hold it responsible for our ills.
The Cons ended EU free movement and raised the wage requirement for non EU immigrants and their dependents under Rishi
So how come we ended up importing so many minimum wage care home workers with their economically inactive dependents ? Or did that just happen under Boris ?
Underlines the point that likely next Chancellor Merz is already widely disliked (as is Scholz for that matter).
Note - the poll is of viewers of the debate.
The other thing happening over recent weeks is a slight revival of the Left, and a corresponding fall in the BSW. A few weeks ago the BSW looked like they would clear the 5% hurdle, and the Left looked like they were out. Now the Left look slightly more likely than the BSW to clear 5%. It could be that both make the cut, which could mean Union + SPD not getting a majority in parliament.
Meanwhile, Merz's latest tactic is to tell people that voting for the FDP is a wasted vote 'even 4% for the FDP are 4% too many'.
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
Underlines the point that likely next Chancellor Merz is already widely disliked (as is Scholz for that matter).
Note - the poll is of viewers of the debate.
The other thing happening over recent weeks is a slight revival of the Left, and a corresponding fall in the BSW. A few weeks ago the BSW looked like they would clear the 5% hurdle, and the Left looked like they were out. Now the Left look slightly more likely than the BSW to clear 5%. It could be that both make the cut, which could mean Union + SPD not getting a majority in parliament.
Meanwhile, Merz's latest tactic is to tell people that voting for the FDP is a wasted vote 'even 4% for the FDP are 4% too many'.
Don't quite understand the antipathy to the FDP, aren't they more natural partners for Merz than the current set up?
Looking forward to more episodes of The Trump Show. Each episode covers all the crazy stuff Don and his pals get up to for lols. Episode 1: how to wind up your neighbours had some of the highest ratings ever.
I’ve learnt a lot from reading the history of the Chagos dispute. For example I’ve gone from supposing Diego Garcia is a Manchester City transfer target, to knowing it as a whole tropical island with a secret Bond Villainesque base on it - runways for long distance bombers, ports that receive nuclear subs - and in one shot Google were slow to take down, you can just make out a white cat on the directors lap.
I think Man City went on hasty disastrous transfer splurge last month, after getting wind they will soon be getting a transfer ban. Taking piss out rules sneaking in owners wealth via illegal sponsorship, would equate to lengthy transfer ban? You read the theory here first.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
You can't blame Starmer for it either...
Is Starmer proposing to test people applying for visas?
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
One thing of interest is the difference between Eng and Scot - England has generally seen far more immigration of non-English speakers than Scotland. I think this is one of the reasons for race relations sometimes being more challenging in England. I also wonder why there is this disparity? Why don't immigrants want to settle Scotland. Put simply, its the weather.*
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
I never understood the hospitals claim. Why not just say what it was? Either new hospitals or substantial upgrades. Easy as that. Am I missing some thing like the idea of the wrong number on the bus was to get Remain denying it and inadvertently explaining how much was going to the EU each week? Is that it?
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
You can't blame Starmer for it either...
Is Starmer proposing to test people applying for visas?
Underlines the point that likely next Chancellor Merz is already widely disliked (as is Scholz for that matter).
Note - the poll is of viewers of the debate.
The other thing happening over recent weeks is a slight revival of the Left, and a corresponding fall in the BSW. A few weeks ago the BSW looked like they would clear the 5% hurdle, and the Left looked like they were out. Now the Left look slightly more likely than the BSW to clear 5%. It could be that both make the cut, which could mean Union + SPD not getting a majority in parliament.
Meanwhile, Merz's latest tactic is to tell people that voting for the FDP is a wasted vote 'even 4% for the FDP are 4% too many'.
Don't quite understand the antipathy to the FDP, aren't they more natural partners for Merz than the current set up?
Well he'd rather potential FDP supporters voted CDU/CSU.
And if the FDP DID make the cut, it would make it more likely that CDU/CSU would have to negotiate a 3-way coalition, which would be a nightmare (there's no chance of just Union+FDP getting a majority). The FDP have also been blocking increasing government borrowing, which a CDU-led government would like to do despite their rhetoric about keeping the 'debt-brake'. The FDP is also prioritising tax cuts for the rich in their program, whereas the CDU/CSU manifesto is aiming tax cuts at the middle class.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
You can't blame Starmer for it either...
Is Starmer proposing to test people applying for visas?
I’m not trying to hold him responsible for it. I’m suggesting that it means it will take more than nice words to bring the transmission rate down to zero and probably means we’d need to implement policies outside the Overton window like requiring a negative test before letting someone live here.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
One thing of interest is the difference between Eng and Scot - England has generally seen far more immigration of non-English speakers than Scotland. I think this is one of the reasons for race relations sometimes being more challenging in England. I also wonder why there is this disparity? Why don't immigrants want to settle Scotland. Put simply, its the weather.*
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
That's a west-east thing, Edinburgh gets about 2/3 the rainfall of Glasgow, and much the same as Oxford. Parts of the east coast get still less rainfall. And even parts of Ayrshire and Tiree for instance are pretty dry.
I suspect it's the winter darkness - people coming for the academic year get stunned by it and won't wait till the summer for the long days.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
“This section applies the law outlined in Chagos to the creation of the SBA. A comparison between the two is appropriate because, in both cases, a part of a colony was separated before independence in order to create a military base under British sovereignty that remains in operation today. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged from the outset that there are differences between how this happened in each instance. These differences suggest that the RoC will find it more difficult than Mauritius, albeit not impossible, to challenge the legality of the separation of its territory. This section focuses on four such differences. First, while Mauritius achieved independence in 1968 – at a time when the existence of the right to self-determination was virtually undisputed – the RoC was created in August 1960, four months before the passing of Resolution 1514 [the UN resolution on which the Chagos decision was based]. Second, Chagos was separated from Mauritius without any consultation with the local population. Conversely, the separation of the SBA was preceded by intense negotiations and a general election. Third, while Mauritians agreed to Chagos’ separation and their independence without any support from third states, Greece and Turkey were actively involved in the negotiations for the independence of the Republic and the creation of the SBA. Fourth, the separation of Chagos from Mauritius became possible through the forced displacement of some 2,000 Chagossians.[98] Nothing similar happened in Cyprus.”
Can you see anything there, amongst the bowls of spaghetti thrown at the wall, that will actually survive contact with UN courts and assembly in the 2020s and 2030s?
All the references to historical precedents, 60s, 50s, I would straight away put a line through, becuase what we done in 1965 was supposed to legally compliant, but it was tick in the box from a different world - bottom line what gets a “internationally legal” tick in 1965 is being looked at again and differently in the 21st century.
Why? How the UN is gamed - lawfare the legal term I think, generating legal problems - Putin sponsored and helped Mauritius campaign for Chagos deal. But good old fashioned politics, where adversaries look to knee cap each other at UN, must be the great game since human race began. What is different now is how the world inevitably has changed over 60 years - decreased influence for some, increased influence for others - where India threw its weight behind Mauritius campaign.
Not necessarily the pressure of the UN and international law alone becoming untenable, might have made UK government U-turn in 2022 and negotiate for the last 2 years to this deal, but influential superpowers in a region saying “look at those UN rulings being abused! Good old fashioned British colonial arrogance! no fair deal for our Mauritius friends, no cooperation with UK in this region.”
At the very very least damage with the precedent of Chagos deal, UK moves from surety to a large question mark over Cyprus, Falklands and others. We are certainly now encouraging enemies, chancers, turncoat British lawyers who hate UKs history, to wield the precedent and give it a go, are we not?
Public international law, like war, is a means for States and non-State organisations, to exert power and influence. UN Special Rapporteurs claim to be acting in the name of legal principles, when in reality, they are are politicians and activists, advocating ideological viewpoints. Likewise, human rights law should really be seen as a means to advance political propositions.
It's certainly quite possible that the ICJ, and other UN bodies, might rule in the manner yous suggest.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
It’s not so much we “couldn’t do” something as we wouldn’t have had the political will *to* do it. The establishment / civil service would have been crying out for us to collaborate with the EU (and many were even post Brexit)
And consensus takes time. We may not have used it well to date, but in theory we should be more nimble.
Supporting Ukraine in the critical early days and the Covid vaccines strategy jump to mind of examples where we did our own thing and we did it fast. In both cases it was critical.
I see Keir Starmer is pledging to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. It seems absurdly optimistic given that new diagnoses are soaring because of immigration.
I can think of another reason why new diagnoses will be soaring.
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
You can't blame Starmer for it either...
Is Starmer proposing to test people applying for visas?
I’m not trying to hold him responsible for it. I’m suggesting that it means it will take more than nice words to bring the transmission rate down to zero and probably means we’d need to implement policies outside the Overton window like requiring a negative test before letting someone live here.
Or even just test. As noted upthread, it's treatable - and the treatment prevents transmission.
Cost is an issue, but the prevention cost is not enormous. PReP is around £40 per month to the NHS. It's currently available free to anyone infected in the UK, irrespective of immigration status.
Lifetime healthcare costs are likely to be higher, of course.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
One thing of interest is the difference between Eng and Scot - England has generally seen far more immigration of non-English speakers than Scotland. I think this is one of the reasons for race relations sometimes being more challenging in England. I also wonder why there is this disparity? Why don't immigrants want to settle Scotland. Put simply, its the weather.*
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
As I’ve previously tediously pointed out Scotland has the same immigration levels as several English regions. The main reason for England having more immigrants is London.
I’ve learnt a lot from reading the history of the Chagos dispute. For example I’ve gone from supposing Diego Garcia is a Manchester City transfer target, to knowing it as a whole tropical island with a secret Bond Villainesque base on it - runways for long distance bombers, ports that receive nuclear subs - and in one shot Google were slow to take down, you can just make out a white cat on the directors lap.
I think Man City went on hasty disastrous transfer splurge last month, after getting wind they will soon be getting a transfer ban. Taking piss out rules sneaking in owners wealth via illegal sponsorship, would equate to lengthy transfer ban? You read the theory here first.
Grealish to Spurs, Diego Garcia to Citeh? Good call.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
It’s not so much we “couldn’t do” something as we wouldn’t have had the political will *to* do it. The establishment / civil service would have been crying out for us to collaborate with the EU (and many were even post Brexit)
And consensus takes time. We may not have used it well to date, but in theory we should be more nimble.
Supporting Ukraine in the critical early days and the Covid vaccines strategy jump to mind of examples where we did our own thing and we did it fast. In both cases it was critical.
I suspect you Brexiteers have oversold yourselves on both the examples quoted.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
I never understood the hospitals claim. Why not just say what it was? Either new hospitals or substantial upgrades. Easy as that. Am I missing some thing like the idea of the wrong number on the bus was to get Remain denying it and inadvertently explaining how much was going to the EU each week? Is that it?
I don't understand any of the claims.
HYUFD - like his party - is saying things that we know are lies: "we cut immigration" "we cut taxes" We know its a lie. He knows its a lie. The voters know its a lie.
I genuinely don't get it. You can only tell lies and make them truth when the reality can be obscured. They can't hide taxes going up when its in your pay packet. They can't hide immigration going up when its visible and tangible. Politically its the most wretched and stupid a strategy can be. Sadly it appears to be all they have left. Which is why they're sinking fast.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
One thing of interest is the difference between Eng and Scot - England has generally seen far more immigration of non-English speakers than Scotland. I think this is one of the reasons for race relations sometimes being more challenging in England. I also wonder why there is this disparity? Why don't immigrants want to settle Scotland. Put simply, its the weather.*
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
That's a west-east thing, Edinburgh gets about 2/3 the rainfall of Glasgow, and much the same as Oxford. Parts of the east coast get still less rainfall. And even parts of Ayrshire and Tiree for instance are pretty dry.
I suspect it's the winter darkness - people coming for the academic year get stunned by it and won't wait till the summer for the long days.
My wife is from Fife and went to University at Aberdeen. She hates the weather in Scotland. She is not that keen with Surrey weather when it drizzles or chucks it down or is dark. I don't mind and prefer it not too hot and prefer greenery to barren landscapes. She prefers a seaview I prefer the countryside. We aren't well matched. Neither are we on food. I'm a foodie, she isn't. I like tart and sour tasting stuff, she likes sweet stuff. Match made in heaven.
Oh and as far as getting wet is concerned I don't give two hoots if it is raining and I get soaked. I always found it amusing that my mum would worry if I went out with wet hair and catch a cold, but didn't seem concerned that I often returned home sopping form head to foot having capsized my canoe or dingy. Not the same somehow!
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
12% eh! Soon Reform will supplant the SCons as an irrelevant and impotent party in Scotland.
Reform now up to 17% in Scotland in the latest Yougov Westminster sample. Reform now doing significantly better in Scotland than London where they are still only on 13% even if still below their UK average rating which is over 20%
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
One thing of interest is the difference between Eng and Scot - England has generally seen far more immigration of non-English speakers than Scotland. I think this is one of the reasons for race relations sometimes being more challenging in England. I also wonder why there is this disparity? Why don't immigrants want to settle Scotland. Put simply, its the weather.*
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
As I’ve previously tediously pointed out Scotland has the same immigration levels as several English regions. The main reason for England having more immigrants is London.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
I never understood the hospitals claim. Why not just say what it was? Either new hospitals or substantial upgrades. Easy as that. Am I missing some thing like the idea of the wrong number on the bus was to get Remain denying it and inadvertently explaining how much was going to the EU each week? Is that it?
I don't understand any of the claims.
HYUFD - like his party - is saying things that we know are lies: "we cut immigration" "we cut taxes" We know its a lie. He knows its a lie. The voters know its a lie.
I genuinely don't get it. You can only tell lies and make them truth when the reality can be obscured. They can't hide taxes going up when its in your pay packet. They can't hide immigration going up when its visible and tangible. Politically its the most wretched and stupid a strategy can be. Sadly it appears to be all they have left. Which is why they're sinking fast.
I think pretending the country only went down the toilet after 4th July is all they have left. Remember the squandered golden legacy?
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
Why do you make your lies so transparent.
In which fucking universe is a Novotel posh-ish?
When it's soi 4, Klong Toie, Bangkok. Given that you never travel outside Sheffield-Manchester, lol, you wouldn't really understand these things
Novotel is quite a chic brand in Asia, but 4 star rather than 5. So, posh-ish
I don’t wish to humble brag but in the last three years I’ve stayed at, inter alia, Claridge’s, The Berkeley, The Maybourne Riveria, The Ritz Paris, the Waldorf Astoria in Edinburgh.
And one wonders why the bank makes such a low ROIC.
Would your business lofe been less productive if you’d stayed at a Hyatt or a Hilton?
Underlines the point that likely next Chancellor Merz is already widely disliked (as is Scholz for that matter).
Note - the poll is of viewers of the debate.
The other thing happening over recent weeks is a slight revival of the Left, and a corresponding fall in the BSW. A few weeks ago the BSW looked like they would clear the 5% hurdle, and the Left looked like they were out. Now the Left look slightly more likely than the BSW to clear 5%. It could be that both make the cut, which could mean Union + SPD not getting a majority in parliament.
Meanwhile, Merz's latest tactic is to tell people that voting for the FDP is a wasted vote 'even 4% for the FDP are 4% too many'.
Don't quite understand the antipathy to the FDP, aren't they more natural partners for Merz than the current set up?
Well he'd rather potential FDP supporters voted CDU/CSU.
And if the FDP DID make the cut, it would make it more likely that CDU/CSU would have to negotiate a 3-way coalition, which would be a nightmare (there's no chance of just Union+FDP getting a majority). The FDP have also been blocking increasing government borrowing, which a CDU-led government would like to do despite their rhetoric about keeping the 'debt-brake'. The FDP is also prioritising tax cuts for the rich in their program, whereas the CDU/CSU manifesto is aiming tax cuts at the middle class.
So bollocks to the so-called FDP.
Merz would prefer the FDP to be his coalition partners but as it looks like a choice between the SPD and AFD as his main coalition partners he needs to squeeze the FDP to be in as strong a person to negotiate with his likely coalition partner ie Scholz given his party still won't deal with the AFD
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
12% eh! Soon Reform will supplant the SCons as an irrelevant and impotent party in Scotland.
Reform now up to 17% in Scotland in the latest Yougov Westminster sample. Reform now doing significantly better in Scotland than London where they are still only on 13% even if still below their UK average rating which is over 20%
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
Why do you make your lies so transparent.
In which fucking universe is a Novotel posh-ish?
When it's soi 4, Klong Toie, Bangkok. Given that you never travel outside Sheffield-Manchester, lol, you wouldn't really understand these things
Novotel is quite a chic brand in Asia, but 4 star rather than 5. So, posh-ish
I don’t wish to humble brag but in the last three years I’ve stayed at, inter alia, Claridge’s, The Berkeley, The Maybourne Riveria, The Ritz Paris, the Waldorf Astoria in Edinburgh.
And one wonders why the bank makes such a low ROIC.
Would your business lofe been less productive if you’d stayed at a Hyatt or a Hilton?
Analytical failure, though, one has to comment. Insufficiency of data. TSE didn't say he did it on expenses, did he?
Half of Generation Z think that Britain is a racist country and only a tenth would risk their lives to defend it in a war, landmark research for The Times has shown:
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
One thing of interest is the difference between Eng and Scot - England has generally seen far more immigration of non-English speakers than Scotland. I think this is one of the reasons for race relations sometimes being more challenging in England. I also wonder why there is this disparity? Why don't immigrants want to settle Scotland. Put simply, its the weather.*
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
As I’ve previously tediously pointed out Scotland has the same immigration levels as several English regions. The main reason for England having more immigrants is London.
31.8% of all live births were to non-UK-born mothers in England and Wales (an increase from 30.3% in 2022); this continues a general increase in the percentage of live births to non-UK-born mothers.
London remained the region with the greatest proportion of births to parents where either one or both were born outside of the UK (67.4% of live births).
An insight into the London's special circumstances.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
I never understood the hospitals claim. Why not just say what it was? Either new hospitals or substantial upgrades. Easy as that. Am I missing some thing like the idea of the wrong number on the bus was to get Remain denying it and inadvertently explaining how much was going to the EU each week? Is that it?
I don't understand any of the claims.
HYUFD - like his party - is saying things that we know are lies: "we cut immigration" "we cut taxes" We know its a lie. He knows its a lie. The voters know its a lie.
I genuinely don't get it. You can only tell lies and make them truth when the reality can be obscured. They can't hide taxes going up when its in your pay packet. They can't hide immigration going up when its visible and tangible. Politically its the most wretched and stupid a strategy can be. Sadly it appears to be all they have left. Which is why they're sinking fast.
I think pretending the country only went down the toilet after 4th July is all they have left. Remember the squandered golden legacy.
And whatever you do, don't mention Brexit.
If you believe that the country "went down the toilet" then the idea that a bunch of mediocrities that would struggle to get a lower-middle management job in the private sector are going to un-flush the country is naivety in the extreme.
Keir Starmer and Rachel Customer-Complaints-Reeves were sent to us so that we could see that it was possible to have a government even more incompetent than Boris Johnson's.
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
Why do you make your lies so transparent.
In which fucking universe is a Novotel posh-ish?
When it's soi 4, Klong Toie, Bangkok. Given that you never travel outside Sheffield-Manchester, lol, you wouldn't really understand these things
Novotel is quite a chic brand in Asia, but 4 star rather than 5. So, posh-ish
I don’t wish to humble brag but in the last three years I’ve stayed at, inter alia, Claridge’s, The Berkeley, The Maybourne Riveria, The Ritz Paris, the Waldorf Astoria in Edinburgh.
And one wonders why the bank makes such a low ROIC.
Would your business lofe been less productive if you’d stayed at a Hyatt or a Hilton?
More than half of those stays were personal.
The others helped seal a couple of massive deals.
Pro tip, stay in a top suite at The Ritz London and they give you access to The Ritz Rolls Royce.
It was beautiful.
The Burj Khalifa should have been added to my original list.
Bonkers talk about Brexit and a leak from Lab to Reform or somesuch.
Aside from some nebulous idea about "sovereignty", or the ability to eat bananas that look how we goddamn want, the major motivating force behind Brexit was immigration. Surely no one can dispute that.
And since Brexit, immigration has seen a huge increase. While I'm not 100% sure peoples' lives have improved demonstrably. I challenge people, even political sophisticates on here, to name me three sovereign measure that we have implemented now that we couldn't have in the EU (I happen to know one or two).
Which circles back to immigration. Brexit has failed on the one tangible measure that so many people voted for it to address.
People then worry about what voters might think of any party that doesn't continue it.
Madness.
Misleading, EU immigration to the UK has fallen sharply since free movement was ended.
Non EU immigration rose initially but Rishi and Cleverly cut it back with tighter visa and wage requirements for immigrants workers and their departments
Question - how can you say you "cut it [immigration] back" having presided over a vast increase in migration? "We cut taxes" you say as you increase taxes "We cut migration" you say as you increase migration "40 new hospitals" you say despite most not being new, or a hospital, or being scheduled this decade "20,000 new police officers" you say having cut numbers so drastically that the effects are palpable
I can only assume that you actually believe this stuff, because otherwise you're all just massive liars. SO the question is why you believe this stuff? This is just adding - how on earth can you believe that an increase is a cut?
You see that 6 point deficit to Reform? That it keeps getting bigger? That they're taking the votes and members and donors off you? Its because you lie and lie and lie and they're stupid lies we can all see are lies.
So why do it?
The Conservatives did cut EU immigration by ending free movement and Rishi ended non EU immigration too,
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
I never understood the hospitals claim. Why not just say what it was? Either new hospitals or substantial upgrades. Easy as that. Am I missing some thing like the idea of the wrong number on the bus was to get Remain denying it and inadvertently explaining how much was going to the EU each week? Is that it?
I don't understand any of the claims.
HYUFD - like his party - is saying things that we know are lies: "we cut immigration" "we cut taxes" We know its a lie. He knows its a lie. The voters know its a lie.
I genuinely don't get it. You can only tell lies and make them truth when the reality can be obscured. They can't hide taxes going up when its in your pay packet. They can't hide immigration going up when its visible and tangible. Politically its the most wretched and stupid a strategy can be. Sadly it appears to be all they have left. Which is why they're sinking fast.
I think pretending the country only went down the toilet after 4th July is all they have left. Remember the squandered golden legacy.
And whatever you do, don't mention Brexit.
If you believe that the country "went down the toilet" then the idea that a bunch of mediocrities that would struggle to get a lower-middle management job in the private sector are going to un-flush the country is naivety in the extreme.
Keir Starmer and Rachel Customer-Complaints-Reeves were sent to us so that we could see that it was possible to have a government even more incompetent than Boris Johnson's.
Touchy!
I am not defending Reeves and Starmer, they certainly have work to do after a very, very pedestrian start, but I will need citation after citation to believe anyone was more incompetent than the venal Boris Johnson. His First Lieutenant, Dominic Cummings dobs him in on that score, just today.
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
In his defence YouGov do say they weight their subsamples.
I have my doubts about that, considering when you see say Wales or Scotland specific polling which are sometimes out of kilter with their subsamples taken over the same period.
It would make us a "rule taker" once more, and I very much doubt would deliver anything like the benefits mooted, but it would hobble us.
Which means there's probably a real risk that negotiator extraordinaire Starmer does it.
Don’t worry, Starmer is far too lacking in moral fibre (ie courage) to do anything like that. I’m mildly surprised about how cowardly Starmer & co have been. The pre GE suggestion was that Labour were only pretending to be Tory lite to placate the red tops and would pivot progressive when they had their majority. Turns out they were exactly who they said they were.
With added complications courtesy of Slab up here. I'm now totally confused what I'd be voting for if I voted for Slab - certainly for Holyrood and even for Westminster (which is the extra surprise amuse-bouche - it really shouldn't be for a Unionist party trying to out-Unionist th e others at present).
The line being pushed by Labour friendly media in Scotland, ie most of it, is that fresh faced, idealistic Sarwar (lol) is being constrained by reactionary Starmer & co. In truth Sarwar is more charmlessly centrist than Starmer, and the unspoken assumption that the good ship SLab would rise on a UK tide of progressive positivity has been mercilessly battered.
Instead it is Reform rising in Scotland just as the rest of the UK outside London
Tons of people, including for some reason many politicians, go by something other than their first name. Saying its for his character is such a lame way of making that quite normal thing look phony.
It is phony
His family don't call him Boris. They use his first name.
He only uses it "professionally", when running for office.
It's a character.
Of course its phony. It isn't his given name, as you rightly point out. But who cares? Boris is in the past - what does it matter?
Can you accept that Rejoin is not a silver bullet solution to all our problems? If things were objectively better before Brexit then we would not have had Brexit. Our decline - the thing we need to arrest - started long long before Brexit, and won't be fixed by magically reversing course.
The point is originally mine and it is FPT
It's a conversation I overheard a couple of hours ago, here's what I posted:
Sitting in a posh-ish Bangkok restaurant having lunch. Overheard two older businessmen discussing global politics - one Israeli (judging by the accent) - one Singaporean Chinese (I think)
They did a quick resume of the world:
America - still powerful, Trump is mad
China - scary
France - perhaps the most beautiful country, really poor politicians
Russia - scary
Britain - “it just gets worse and worse every year, Boris was bad enough, this new guy is terrible. Brits aren’t the brightest”
Oh dear. However they did then spend 10 minutes discussing British cultural references - from the royals to Piers Morgan - so at least we’re still talked about
[from this I took several lessons, one of which is: Boris might be unique in being a leading politician known worldwide by his first name]
I'm curious as to what an Israeli English accent is.
Wouldn't most globetrotting Israelis have an English accent influenced by whatever country they studied / worked / lived in when younger ?
Or did this bloke just sound like Benny Net ?
You've honestly never heard an Israeli accent??
Think indeed about Bibi Netanyahu speaking English. That is an Israeli accent. It is one of the most distinctive accents in the "Anglophone" world
In real life I don't think I've ever met an Israeli.
So that leaves a few Israeli politicians who are on the television.
Now Netanyahu lived in the USA when he was young and then returned to go to university there in his twenties and then worked there for a few more years.
That will have influenced his accent.
If he had lived instead in England, Australia or even a different part of the USA his accent would likely be different.
Well I've met Israelis all over the world, young and old, and they nearly all have a strong accent (unless they've spent most of their lives outside Israel)
And Netanyahu is a pretty classic example
If you watch TV and listen to Israeli vox pops that's what Israelis sound like. It is not particularly pretty, a little harsh, but maybe no worse than thick Strine or Saffer
Wikipedia says only 2% of Israelis are native English speakers, while 53% are native Hebrew speakers.
Yes, on my visits to Israel I've often been surprised at how BADLY some speak English. Because we only hear English-speakers from Israel (albeit accented) on TV we presume it is almost the main language there. It really is not. Hebrew absolutely dominates, despite it being a language re-invented from whole cloth in the 20th century, to go with the new country
A lesson to independent Ireland there, you too could have done it, with Gaelic. But you didn't
If 99% of Israel's population had been English speakers it might have been a bit harder.
Throw me a bone here, guys. Can somebody fill in the missing data, please?
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census) Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%) Aus = 72% (2021 Census) NZ = 95% (2018 Census) Singapore = 48% (2020 Census) England = 91% (2021 Census) Scotland = 94% (2022 Census) NI = 95% (2021 Census) Wales = ?? (2021 Census) RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
One thing of interest is the difference between Eng and Scot - England has generally seen far more immigration of non-English speakers than Scotland. I think this is one of the reasons for race relations sometimes being more challenging in England. I also wonder why there is this disparity? Why don't immigrants want to settle Scotland. Put simply, its the weather.*
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
That's a west-east thing, Edinburgh gets about 2/3 the rainfall of Glasgow, and much the same as Oxford. Parts of the east coast get still less rainfall. And even parts of Ayrshire and Tiree for instance are pretty dry.
I suspect it's the winter darkness - people coming for the academic year get stunned by it and won't wait till the summer for the long days.
My wife is from Fife and went to University at Aberdeen. She hates the weather in Scotland. She is not that keen with Surrey weather when it drizzles or chucks it down or is dark. I don't mind and prefer it not too hot and prefer greenery to barren landscapes. She prefers a seaview I prefer the countryside. We aren't well matched. Neither are we on food. I'm a foodie, she isn't. I like tart and sour tasting stuff, she likes sweet stuff. Match made in heaven.
Oh and as far as getting wet is concerned I don't give two hoots if it is raining and I get soaked. I always found it amusing that my mum would worry if I went out with wet hair and catch a cold, but didn't seem concerned that I often returned home sopping form head to foot having capsized my canoe or dingy. Not the same somehow!
The Fife coast is the sunniest place in Scotland! Despite this, and hailing from Fife myself, I also hate the Scottish weather, or more specifically the unrelenting dark winter months. Like your wife, though, I am drawn to the sea. I think if you grow up close to the coast you never want to be too far from it. And if there's one thing the UK really has in spades it's beautiful coastline.
Comments
Where it goes wrong is the other stuff we the public tend to infer from that performance. If we assume that the Borises of this world really are as clever as they pretend to be, we are liable to put them in charge of things, and that has consequences.
See also: political speechmaking. Politicians saying their own stuff tells the audience useful things about the quality of their mind. Politicians reading out lines written by others...rather less so.
How’s your insurance company doing in Chad? What do you mean that’s not a priority market for you?
Just sayin'.
Essentially I don't think most people readily think of themselves as permanent supporters of any party, and if you correspond with them in that spirit they often respond. But comversely if you're rude about them online you're an unprofessional idiot.
Obviously it would be better to have some say but that ship sailed when people of your persuasion voted to stop having that say.
ETA the Irish call their language Irish.
And a belated Good Morning to everyone.
{Engage 18th pamphlet mode}
"The Advantage To The Publick Of The Employment Of Deceased Engineers Of Eminence Upon The Boards Of Companies"
- Never voting for higher executive compensation
- Never voting for finacialisation of the company
- ....
EDIT: The relative in question has opined that most Boards are made from indifferent chipboard of the lowest quality. They go to pieces at a touch....
What a bunch of peasants, I mean who flies commercial or uses BA when you can use Emirates.
1980 11.6%
1990 20.3%
2000 23.0%
2010 32.3%
2020 48.3%
£18 each is about the pace. Two will sink the battleships of most here. You get complimentary nuts and olives (or snacks of that type).
So £40 and out. As an after theatre/film thing, it has much to recommend it.
Irrespective of the views of our free speech absolutist anti-wokers.
On the other hand, my local pub is officially the best in London (https://www.timeout.com/london/news/time-out-reveals-the-50-best-pubs-in-london-for-2023-032823) so at least I have an excuse for not venturing further afield in search of liquid refreshment.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-pentagon-says-it-will-rotate-out-some-media-offices-2025-02-01/
As ever, (Little) Britain led the way (40-seconds video)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d9CQRinbxLo
I did miss it on the previous thread and almost missed it here as well. If I had of done it would not have been intentional.
I appreciate the effort in you replying in detail. Most wouldn't.
a) As you point out we had left in 2017 so we are not implementing an EU law, but implementing our own law. Presumably because those in power (right or wrong) thought the EU law a good law to copy and implement. So this has nothing whatsoever to do with being in the EU. To argue otherwise is nut, because we didn't need to implement it and we did. Do we not implement laws that other countries have just because they have them? Really? I believe murder is against the law in most EU countries and it is against the law here as well. Shall we repeal it then because they have it? No of course not.
So we didn't have to implement it in 2017 and yet we did. So not a consequence of being in the EU then. It is not beyond us to implement bad laws (not that I know this is one) without having to blame the EU.
b) Now laws we implemented when we were in the EU (because I can't use the argument above on them) that you reference. Can you actually point out the 1981 EU wording and compare it to what we put into law and what you find reprehensible about it?
I'm sorry but as I pointed out before Boris tried this trick at the Treasury Select Committee and unfortunately for him when he quoted a bunch of these EU laws committee members were prepared for him and took him apart. A lot of it was on the rules on coffins I believe. This resulted in the famous quote which I can't be bothered to look up but paraphrasing:
'That is all very well Boris, but none of it is actually true is it'.
It is a committee meeting worth watching and is on the internet. Andrew Tyrie made the quote. Boris made a complete arse of himself on the very topic of us implementing EU laws.
...
...
The Labour Party. Noted for its anti-immigration stance.
I think the root cause is you are upset at the quality and decisions of British politicians. Can't fault the thinking, but for some absurd reason you then go on to blame the EU.
We've been out of the EU for years now. How much longer do you plan to hold it responsible for our ills.
Only if you're a Time Out journalist they might.
It's one of the things that Cummings got right (he was always better at saying what was wrong rather than coming up with solutions.) 99 percent of the time, Boris is utterly bumbling and useless. But for the 1 percent of the time where it connects to something Boris wants (usually adulation), he is utterly ruthless and totally cynically effective.
Then the bumbling Boris thing helps him, because it acts as a disguise. We can't process the concept that he is playing us all like fiddles to his own ends, becuase someone that shambolic can't be capable of that. It's not a morally admirable trait, but he has done what he has done very well. It won him an election. It's just that the prize (getting to run the country) was one he couldn't cope with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/27/health/pepfar-trump-freeze.html
That means Heathrow / Gatwick - second shudder
Ending transmission in the UK by 2030 is entirely possible, assuming an adequate level of public health provision.
Being able to rely on that assumption, much more than anything else, is the problem.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hiv-annual-data-tables/hiv-testing-prep-new-hiv-diagnoses-and-care-outcomes-for-people-accessing-hiv-services-2024-report
- there were 6,008 HIV diagnoses in England (including those previously diagnosed abroad) in 2023, an increase of 51% from 3,975 in 2022 and of 56% from 3,859 in 2019
- in 2023, 53% (3,198 of 6,008) of diagnoses were reported to UKHSA as being previously diagnosed abroad
All the references to historical precedents, 60s, 50s, I would straight away put a line through, becuase what we done in 1965 was supposed to legally compliant, but it was tick in the box from a different world - bottom line what gets a “internationally legal” tick in 1965 is being looked at again and differently in the 21st century.
Why? How the UN is gamed - lawfare the legal term I think, generating legal problems - Putin sponsored and helped Mauritius campaign for Chagos deal. But good old fashioned politics, where adversaries look to knee cap each other at UN, must be the great game since human race began. What is different now is how the world inevitably has changed over 60 years - decreased influence for some, increased influence for others - where India threw its weight behind Mauritius campaign.
Not necessarily the pressure of the UN and international law alone becoming untenable, might have made UK government U-turn in 2022 and negotiate for the last 2 years to this deal, but influential superpowers in a region saying “look at those UN rulings being abused! Good old fashioned British colonial arrogance! no fair deal for our Mauritius friends, no cooperation with UK in this region.”
At the very very least damage with the precedent of Chagos deal, UK moves from surety to a large question mark over Cyprus, Falklands and others. We are certainly now encouraging enemies, chancers, turncoat British lawyers who hate UKs history, to wield the precedent and give it a go, are we not?
Re gold plating - I agree.
Now come on, you have dealt with one of my points very well, so what about the rest? Answer them please.
Blaming the EU for £100m bat tunnel is a cop out. We have a whole host of idiots in the UK to blame for duff decisions and duff laws without having to blame French and German idiots. They were a convenient scapegoat while we were in the EU. Not anymore.
Have you seen Boris giving evidence to the committee? Not sure you would feel so confident in your position if you had. I highly recommend a viewing. Easy to find on the internet.
Population who consider English as their "main language" or "spoken at home" language (%):
USA = 78% (2020 Census)
Canadia = 68% (2021 Census, excluding Quebec = 80%)
Aus = 72% (2021 Census)
NZ = 95% (2018 Census)
Singapore = 48% (2020 Census)
England = 91% (2021 Census)
Scotland = 94% (2022 Census)
NI = 95% (2021 Census)
Wales = ?? (2021 Census)
RoI = ?? (2022 Census)
https://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-reforms-support-growing-in-scotland/
I also wanted to thank @Luckyguy1983 because it is pleasant to have a chat where we disagree strongly, but do it pleasantly.
I appreciate the spirit, but even the movie reference is dated.
"Goodbye, Russia. Goodbye, Lenin," said Lithuania's President Gitanas Nausėda after the Baltic states disconnected from Russia's energy system. "This is a historic moment, marking the end of a long journey. We've achieved full energy independence. The era of pressure and blackmail is over."
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1888625125232177226
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundestagswahl-2025-olaf-scholz-knapper-duellsieger-laut-umfrage-a-57b1b138-de3b-4c41-adea-1eadb2fcaaed
Underlines the point that likely next Chancellor Merz is already widely disliked (as is Scholz for that matter).
Note - the poll is of viewers of the debate.
The other thing happening over recent weeks is a slight revival of the Left, and a corresponding fall in the BSW. A few weeks ago the BSW looked like they would clear the 5% hurdle, and the Left looked like they were out. Now the Left look slightly more likely than the BSW to clear 5%. It could be that both make the cut, which could mean Union + SPD not getting a majority in parliament.
Meanwhile, Merz's latest tactic is to tell people that voting for the FDP is a wasted vote 'even 4% for the FDP are 4% too many'.
The Conservatives also cut inheritance tax, cut the additional rate of income tax and took the lowest earners out of income tax.
Latest seats forecast yesterday from a JL partners megapoll had Labour collapsing to just 200 seats, the Conservatives just 10 behind on 190 with Reform on 102 and the LDs 70
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/pm-rails-at-complacent-liberals-as-farage-pulls-the-strings-l5pwvrfvb
I think Man City went on hasty disastrous transfer splurge last month, after getting wind they will soon be getting a transfer ban. Taking piss out rules sneaking in owners wealth via illegal sponsorship, would equate to lengthy transfer ban? You read the theory here first.
I see that Macron is announcing 100 billions worth of investment in tech and AI.
I also see that the U.K. isn't.
Ho-hum.
*I'm mostly joking but I do know one academic who tried to move to Glasgow but had to come back South as his wife hated the weather in Glasgow so much.
And if the FDP DID make the cut, it would make it more likely that CDU/CSU would have to negotiate a 3-way coalition, which would be a nightmare (there's no chance of just Union+FDP getting a majority). The FDP have also been blocking increasing government borrowing, which a CDU-led government would like to do despite their rhetoric about keeping the 'debt-brake'. The FDP is also prioritising tax cuts for the rich in their program, whereas the CDU/CSU manifesto is aiming tax cuts at the middle class.
So bollocks to the so-called FDP.
I suspect it's the winter darkness - people coming for the academic year get stunned by it and won't wait till the summer for the long days.
So did immigration rise or fall after Brexit.
It's certainly quite possible that the ICJ, and other UN bodies, might rule in the manner yous suggest.
And fair play to you, for changing your mind.
And consensus takes time. We may not have used it well to date, but in theory we should be more nimble.
Supporting Ukraine in the critical early days and the Covid vaccines strategy jump to mind of examples where we did our own thing and we did it fast. In both cases it was critical.
As noted upthread, it's treatable - and the treatment prevents transmission.
Cost is an issue, but the prevention cost is not enormous. PReP is around £40 per month to the NHS. It's currently available free to anyone infected in the UK, irrespective of immigration status.
Lifetime healthcare costs are likely to be higher, of course.
HYUFD - like his party - is saying things that we know are lies:
"we cut immigration"
"we cut taxes"
We know its a lie. He knows its a lie. The voters know its a lie.
I genuinely don't get it. You can only tell lies and make them truth when the reality can be obscured. They can't hide taxes going up when its in your pay packet. They can't hide immigration going up when its visible and tangible. Politically its the most wretched and stupid a strategy can be. Sadly it appears to be all they have left. Which is why they're sinking fast.
Oh and as far as getting wet is concerned I don't give two hoots if it is raining and I get soaked. I always found it amusing that my mum would worry if I went out with wet hair and catch a cold, but didn't seem concerned that I often returned home sopping form head to foot having capsized my canoe or dingy. Not the same somehow!
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/VotingIntention_MRP_250203_w.pdf
You do that again, I'll flag you for
SCOTTISH SUBSAMPLE
SCOTTISH SUBSAMPLE
SCOTTISH SUBSAMPLE
And whatever you do, don't mention Brexit.
Would your business lofe been less productive if you’d stayed at a Hyatt or a Hilton?
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/gen-z-survey-police-racism-crime-nhs-hlghh0pxw
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2023
31.8% of all live births were to non-UK-born mothers in England and Wales (an increase from 30.3% in 2022); this continues a general increase in the percentage of live births to non-UK-born mothers.
London remained the region with the greatest proportion of births to parents where either one or both were born outside of the UK (67.4% of live births).
An insight into the London's special circumstances.
Keir Starmer and Rachel Customer-Complaints-Reeves were sent to us so that we could see that it was possible to have a government even more incompetent than Boris Johnson's.
The others helped seal a couple of massive deals.
Pro tip, stay in a top suite at The Ritz London and they give you access to The Ritz Rolls Royce.
It was beautiful.
The Burj Khalifa should have been added to my original list.
I am not defending Reeves and Starmer, they certainly have work to do after a very, very pedestrian start, but I will need citation after citation to believe anyone was more incompetent than the venal Boris Johnson. His First Lieutenant, Dominic Cummings dobs him in on that score, just today.
It is a nonsense
I have my doubts about that, considering when you see say Wales or Scotland specific polling which are sometimes out of kilter with their subsamples taken over the same period.
Reform are rising in Scotland not just England and Wales however much he denies it