All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
So your side votes with kindness and their side votes with hatred ?
No, most voters are ordinary people who vote based on their own experiences.
Those millions of Hispanic voters who switched to Trump didn't do so because they 'prefer hate', they did so because their experiences made them want change.
Look, Trump chose his battlefield and won. Give him credit for that. The choice to the voters was clear. The others are "my side" only because I do prefer kindness to hate. You have a different view - that's your choice as well.
Opinions as to what kindness and hate are vary from person to person.
And assuming that your own view is the only correct one suggests a lack of empathy to those different to yourself.
Still nice, liberal people can assure themselves they are morally superior while sneering at those different to themselves for being filled with hate.
You seem to be saying Trump is the fault of the Democrats. This doesn't make sense given Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Either Trump is great - he's killing children with his vaccine mandate, he's handing Ukraine to the invader - exactly what I wanted! Or Americans made the wrong choice - they should have chosen Harris because she would have done none of those things.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
Russia has more nuclear weapons still than any other nation though
Which a massive investment in conventional arms won't fix. There appears to be a consensus that we need to increase defence spending - it would be good to know what it would actually be spent on.
I'd guess the effective, but politically unfeasible, thing to do would be to send it all to Ukraine/Baltic nations to help build up their capabilities. Plus perhaps some technology to protect our underseas cables from sabotage (but that relies on us actually destroying some Russian ships inside friendly EEZs, which seems unlikely).
What’s needed is an increase in effective capability, rather than an increase in spending per se.
No multi-year bondoggles for 2040’s technology, but a lot more production of what’s currently available, including tonnes of ammo, and looking at 2026’s technology such as better and mass-produced drones.
This is exactly it. The lesson of this war is, on the one hand, mass production of cost effective drones (air and sea), developing EW capabilities (and anti-EW capabilities), anti-missile air defence systems, and mass production of artillery shells. Alongside the perennial requirement for well-trained infantry and effective combat medicine.
Which is, broadly speaking, the lesson of every significant conflict since WW1. Where you substitute "drones" for whatever the distance-striking technology du jour might be.
Henry V rocked up at Agincourt with somewhere north of 500,000 arrows.
I wonder how many they had left once they had finished turning the French into porcupines. I was friends with a commando who was at Port Stanley. They shelled the Argentinians for nearly 24 hours solid. Thankfully they surrendered just before the shells ran out.
The old saying of amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics remains as true as ever.
I seem to be alone in suggesting a European stockpile of long lead time items. Specifically 155mm artillery shell bodies. They are lumps of steel. Not changed much in many decades. Once made, they can last forever.
The UK habit has been (I think) to destroy anything "not needed now", or sell it off, rather than preserve for future use.
Reasons are afaics sometimes Treasury bean counting, and sometimes a political desire for "them" not to be able to reverse "our" decisions.
Am I right in that?
I think this country would be better governed if we disbanded the Treasury.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
No more so than saying 'Americans prefer hate to kindness'.
Trump partly won because of a multiyear campaign of manipulation of the electoral system by many routes (yes, it's documented), and also partly because Elon Musk threw £250m at it.
I do wonder with the likes of local Post Offices whether there is an obvious business to go and chase. The indentured slave society (DPD, Amazon etc) is unsustainable on so many levels. What makes it worse is that so many of these delivery firms are terrible at last mile delivery.
I'd be far happier with collecting my Amazon package from my local post office than having to wait around for Evri to hoy it over the gate or lie about me being out or it being delivered to the right door number in the wrong village.
Won't help WHSmith, but may be something that can be done to reinvent the Post Office.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
If you interpret chaos and bad outcomes as reality/national interest you could turn it around. But it's just repeating what I'm saying.
Yesterday I mentioned a major Court Case in Washington DC brought by 13 States about whether Musk as head of Doge was Constitutional under Judge Chutkan.
If it succeeds it will be appealed up, which will cause delay. It may then be lost or won at Appeal or SCOTUS level, in which case Doge stands, or some modifications are required, or a real Department has to be created - which is via Congress and involved Musk making all the usual disclosures that he may not like doing.
Here is a short report which is quite good on the legal processes involved. Opinionated, but clear. 14 minutes.
It's surely unlikely that this is a deliberate act by Reeves as it would be trivial to check its veracity. The JPE is generally regarded as one of the top three or four economics journals and I struggle to imagine anyone trying to pretend they have a paper there. The EJPE is itself quite a good journal, though - I have a couple of papers in it myself. Reeves' paper looks pretty good.
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
There's a guy in my cycling club who was an undercover cop. He went to Centre Parcs and ran into Albania's top organised crime murderer in the pool. He had to go home before this bloke rumbled him and decapitated his kids.
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
There's a guy in my cycling club who was an undercover cop. He went to Centre Parcs and ran into Albania's top organised crime murderer in the pool. He had to go home before this bloke rumbled him and decapitated his kids.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
May or may? That seems to be taking uncertainty out of whether they would be eaten. Even Vance in his mealy mouthed Jesuitical way accepted pets were going about their business unconsumed.
Earlier in the war there was some confusion over this; IIRC it was down to the fact that the USA had sent far more military aid than Europe; but Europe had sent much more non-military support to keep Ukraine's economy going. Or somesuch.
The Yanks liked to pick the military support figures; the EU the whole figures. In truth, both are vital.
There's still confusion about it. Recently Mr Chump and the voices in his head at a press conference were claiming that USA support was $300bn and EU support $50bn.
TBF that tweet does not measure committed vs delivered (on which Europe is still ahead).
But if you look at the thread you can see plenty of nit-picking over what is basic data (on a level of "but Europe is lots of countries"), and no end of Usonians completely vanished up their own rabbitholes.
What is this sudden obsession with the word “Usonian”? I had barely heard it a week ago and now it’s everywhere.
People like JD Vance and so many others are wilfully purblind.
What is this sudden obsession with wee
JFK: "Congratulations, how do you feel?" Forrest Gump: "I gotta pee!" JFK: "I believe he said he had to go pee. Heh heh."
I screwed up the quotes and it was too hard to fix on a phone. The fact I am in an urology outpatient facility is entirely coincidental.
Reforms prospects are influenced by Trumps actions over the next few years. Not sure being that close to him will help them if he becomes even more toxic to UK voters .
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
An EU army with Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland and Austria having a veto over its use is not going to be effective for anything.
A look at things like ESA will show the next problem - workshare. The more partners in a multinational development program, the more the infighting about who gets to build what.
An EU army will have to live with being inefficient. Because various capabilities will have to duplicated and the equipment will have to be non standard - for politics.
An EU army will consist of hundreds of brass hats meeting every few months in Brussels, arguing about who should build what and in which language everyone should learn to communicate. Followed by a meeting of the ministers to argue about the contractors and subcontractors making sure the jobs are equally spread out acrosss the Union.
At a time of war, nothing will ever get built, and no soldiers will ever get trained.
One massive advantage of the UK being outside the EU, is that it makes an EU army somewhat less likely.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
No more so than saying 'Americans prefer hate to kindness'.
Slightly more so because to say hate edged it over better angels is a simplification but it has a germ. Look at much of the rhetoric of the Trump campaign. Go back a few years and it would have been disqualifying. It speaks to declining standards that it now isn't.
But ok, a bit of rhetorical tit/tat from you there. That's a relief. You don't post much these days (all good, I hope) but I remember you used to hate all the 'national populist' nonsense. I was afraid you'd gone bad.
Private sector and public sector wages still increasing ahead of inflation. Good news right? Thanks Rachel
Nice try at trolling but if it is true, I have my doubts, as most of my colleagues are on pay freezes atm, it's in spite of her not because of her.
She's an idiot.
Alternatively you actually might be in the wrong job / sector. Shit happens when the banks get worried about a company or a sector.
Nah. This is just the fanbois clutching at straws.
The economy is experiencing zero growth and employers have cut back on expansion plans, new hires and growth.
That's Reeves. All Reeves.
I'm not quite that pessimistic yet. Usually this time of year you get a couple of large, usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round. Then there is the background of countries being on different parts of the economic cycle (which Gordon Brown tried to ban!). So it looks like Germany went down first, so you'd expect them to start to come out first. Followed by France.
No need to reach for the panic button yet.
Germany is in big trouble, its remaining industry hamstrung by high energy prices and increasing regulation. They’re looking at the same scale of recession as financial centres such as the UK suffered in ‘08-‘09.
"usually retailers, go under due to poor Xmas trading. Not seen anything as significant this time round."
Beales has gone under according to Telegraph.
Beales has been going bankrupt for five years.
I don't think there's much scope remaining for major retail chains to go bankrupt as so many have already gone bankrupt since 2008.
Its why high streets already look so run down.
WH Smiths is up for sale. I guess if there is no buyer then that'll be another empty shop in many, many towns.
The Cambridge store lost its second floor some time back, and is now almost denuded of stock.
One thing the EU (And others incl us in it's orbit) need to agree is "Where is the front line of Europe".
Britain and France say it's beyond the Dneiper, Poland and Germany seem to indicate it's west of Lviv.
Any attempt to wrest the initiative from the Russia/USA talks was lost as that fundamental point didn't seem to be agreed between European leaders in Paris yesterday.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
Yes, I do accept that. If somebody was to sneak in here and eat my cat I'd be ... well I don't even want to think about it.
But we were talking about the hatefest that was Donald Trump's election campaign and how sad it is that almost half the voters in the great nation of America bought into it.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
An EU army with Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland and Austria having a veto over its use is not going to be effective for anything.
Then the answer is a "coalition of the willing" separate from EU and NATO structures. A European Army On the Dnieper (EAOD) with different countries' units, co-ordinated by Ukraine High Command.
One thing the EU (And others incl us in it's orbit) need to agree is "Where is the front line of Europe".
Britain and France say it's beyond the Dneiper, Poland and Germany seem to indicate it's west of Lviv.
Any attempt to wrest the initiative from the Russia/USA talks was lost as that fundamental point didn't seem to be agreed between European leaders in Paris yesterday.
I do wonder with the likes of local Post Offices whether there is an obvious business to go and chase. The indentured slave society (DPD, Amazon etc) is unsustainable on so many levels. What makes it worse is that so many of these delivery firms are terrible at last mile delivery.
I'd be far happier with collecting my Amazon package from my local post office than having to wait around for Evri to hoy it over the gate or lie about me being out or it being delivered to the right door number in the wrong village.
Won't help WHSmith, but may be something that can be done to reinvent the Post Office.
Having a place that does all those little jobs- paying in a cheque, sending off official documentation, collecting a parcel... seems sensible. Bits of it happen, a lot of corner shops round here act as parcel points as well.
But the final step in that process- a network of places where everyone knows what to look for and is assured of a consistent reliability and dignity- that probably needs state activism that we haven't had for decades.
C'mon Keir. If we must have a socialist government, let's have some of the advantages well.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
No one is having a go at her because she's a woman.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
Yes, I do accept that. If somebody was to sneak in here and eat my cat I'd be ... well I don't even want to think about it.
But we were talking about the hatefest that was Donald Trump's election campaign and how sad it is that almost half the voters in the great nation of America bought into it.
I think people who hate Trump underestimate the fun factor. His campaign was about YMCA and allowing people to lighten up a bit.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
May or may? That seems to be taking uncertainty out of whether they would be eaten. Even Vance in his mealy mouthed Jesuitical way accepted pets were going about their business unconsumed.
Yes, a subtle but devastating escalation from William there. Immigrants or Pets? A nation can have one or the other.
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
There's a guy in my cycling club who was an undercover cop. He went to Centre Parcs and ran into Albania's top organised crime murderer in the pool. He had to go home before this bloke rumbled him and decapitated his kids.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
No more so than saying 'Americans prefer hate to kindness'.
Slightly more so because to say hate edged it over better angels is a simplification but it has a germ. Look at much of the rhetoric of the Trump campaign. Go back a few years and it would have been disqualifying. It speaks to declining standards that it now isn't.
But ok, a bit of rhetorical tit/tat from you there. That's a relief. You don't post much these days (all good, I hope) but I remember you used to hate all the 'national populist' nonsense. I was afraid you'd gone bad.
Bad year last year (various reasons). Plus a bit disillusioned with PB. (Why the eff are @felix and @BlancheLivermore banned?)
I hate populism because it offers simplistic solutions to complex problems and relies on ignorance. Not the same thing as national interest though. I agree with 'America First' (for Americans) just as I believe in 'Britain First' for us.
I think we tend to over estimate the size and power of Russia and under estimate that of the EU/UK.
The three big powers are US, China and EU/UK. Russia is a tiddler and needs a good smack. Perhaps China is the adult in the room and should be in the talks?
The EU+UK figure is misleading because there are lot of capability gaps, fragmentation, duplication and less economies of scale. They aren't getting the full capability that the headline figure would suggest. An EU Army will fix all that.
An EU army with Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland and Austria having a veto over its use is not going to be effective for anything.
Then the answer is a "coalition of the willing" separate from EU and NATO structures. A European Army On the Dnieper (EAOD) with different countries' units, co-ordinated by Ukraine High Command.
Zero chance they will take orders from UAF who are as corrupt as fuck and riddled with GRU.
Who will be in charge is a thorny issue. Both the UK and France would be happy to be slavishly subservient to a US commander but couldn't take the ego death of being a junior partner to the other.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
There is a difference in tone, I reckon. Something about the difference between "Politician X is rubbish" and "Politician X has no right to be there".
Both strands have been there for a while, long before July 2024. But the imbalance is new. Not helped by some people feeling powerless for the first time since the 70s. (Plenty on the right saw Blair and Brown as decent chaps-shame about the rosette.)
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
So your side votes with kindness and their side votes with hatred ?
No, most voters are ordinary people who vote based on their own experiences.
Those millions of Hispanic voters who switched to Trump didn't do so because they 'prefer hate', they did so because their experiences made them want change.
Look, Trump chose his battlefield and won. Give him credit for that. The choice to the voters was clear. The others are "my side" only because I do prefer kindness to hate. You have a different view - that's your choice as well.
Opinions as to what kindness and hate are vary from person to person.
And assuming that your own view is the only correct one suggests a lack of empathy to those different to yourself.
Still nice, liberal people can assure themselves they are morally superior while sneering at those different to themselves for being filled with hate.
You seem to be saying Trump is the fault of the Democrats. This doesn't make sense given Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Either Trump is great - he's killing children with his vaccine mandate, he's handing Ukraine to the invader - exactly what I wanted! Or Americans made the wrong choice - they should have chosen Harris because she would have done none of those things.
That Trump won is largely the fault of the Dems.
Give the opposing side enough open goals to aim for and it matters little how bad their player is.
That Trump was the GOP candidate is a different issue and there's a lot of blame there for the GOP establishment.
On that it seems that Mitch McConell now realises he messed up.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
Yes, I do accept that. If somebody was to sneak in here and eat my cat I'd be ... well I don't even want to think about it.
But we were talking about the hatefest that was Donald Trump's election campaign and how sad it is that almost half the voters in the great nation of America bought into it.
I think people who hate Trump underestimate the fun factor. His campaign was about YMCA and allowing people to lighten up a bit.
So I must have missed that amongst the hate filled bile spewed out by Trump.
Yougov finds that Boris Johnson is more popular than Farage and Badenoch with 2024 Conservative voters but Nigel Farage is now more popular on favourables than Boris with 2024 Labour and LD voters and Kemi more popular net than both Boris and Farage with 2024 Labour and LD voters. On a forced choice overall though Boris narrowly leads Farage amongst all voters 29% to 24% as best PM.
While Boris has a small net positive rating with Reform voters, unlike Kemi who they give net negative approval, he also massively trails Farage's huge net favourable rating with Reform voters
I'd be far happier with collecting my Amazon package from my local post office than having to wait around for Evri to hoy it over the gate or lie about me being out or it being delivered to the right door number in the wrong village.
The limited opening hours of Post Offices would somewhat limit their usefulness as a pick up point, I think. My local Co-Op acts as an Amazon pick up and they're open until 10pm.
We do probably need some kind of government initiative to set up a bunch of 'service hubs' that open late and provide banking, postal and courier drop off / pick up services. Such a thing would be very handy for people like me who live in areas with no post office or bank.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
No one is having a go at her because she's a woman.
We won't agree on this. But you see that falling into the abyss Tory poll score? Stuff like this is why. Go ask women voters their opinion. Not the remaining handful of Tory ones, the voters you've lost.
Farage said, “the Conservative party is not on the right in any measurable way.”
He said their 14 years in government saw “the highest tax burden since 1947 … legal, mass immigration on a scale hitherto never even dreamt … illegal migration, small boats crossing the Channel, and the government completely incapable of dealing with it, because they couldn’t face up to what membership of the European convention on human rights was all about, and 14 years that saw net zero enshrined into law by a Conservative government.”
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
So your side votes with kindness and their side votes with hatred ?
No, most voters are ordinary people who vote based on their own experiences.
Those millions of Hispanic voters who switched to Trump didn't do so because they 'prefer hate', they did so because their experiences made them want change.
Look, Trump chose his battlefield and won. Give him credit for that. The choice to the voters was clear. The others are "my side" only because I do prefer kindness to hate. You have a different view - that's your choice as well.
Opinions as to what kindness and hate are vary from person to person.
And assuming that your own view is the only correct one suggests a lack of empathy to those different to yourself.
Still nice, liberal people can assure themselves they are morally superior while sneering at those different to themselves for being filled with hate.
You seem to be saying Trump is the fault of the Democrats. This doesn't make sense given Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Either Trump is great - he's killing children with his vaccine mandate, he's handing Ukraine to the invader - exactly what I wanted! Or Americans made the wrong choice - they should have chosen Harris because she would have done none of those things.
Donald Trump does something stupid and malevolent. Don't blame him or his enablers, blame his vanquished opponents, the very people who warned he'd be stupid and malevolent.
YouGov have a thread of other stats from that block of polling here. None of the numbers are particularly great for anyone.
Looking terminal for the Tories tbh, Farage's weak point in 2029 is probably Ukraine but Badenoch is going about nullifying that one for him tbh, and who knows where we will be then.
Farage said, “the Conservative party is not on the right in any measurable way.”
He said their 14 years in government saw “the highest tax burden since 1947 … legal, mass immigration on a scale hitherto never even dreamt … illegal migration, small boats crossing the Channel, and the government completely incapable of dealing with it, because they couldn’t face up to what membership of the European convention on human rights was all about, and 14 years that saw net zero enshrined into law by a Conservative government.”
Farage said “I’m an environmentalist in the old school sense” and suggested a focus on carbon had “actually blinded us to other environmental disasters that are going on.”
Meanwhile, Labour announce yet another expensive and delaying consultation, this time on creating Great British Railway.
Get on with it already. The plan is already there, a transition team are already hired and a headquarters site has been agreed. What is left to consult on?
One thing the EU (And others incl us in it's orbit) need to agree is "Where is the front line of Europe".
Britain and France say it's beyond the Dneiper, Poland and Germany seem to indicate it's west of Lviv.
Any attempt to wrest the initiative from the Russia/USA talks was lost as that fundamental point didn't seem to be agreed between European leaders in Paris yesterday.
YouGov have a thread of other stats from that block of polling here. None of the numbers are particularly great for anyone.
Looking terminal for the Tories tbh, Farage's weak point in 2029 is probably Ukraine but Badenoch is going about nullifying that one for him tbh, and who knows where we will be then.
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
There's a guy in my cycling club who was an undercover cop. He went to Centre Parcs and ran into Albania's top organised crime murderer in the pool. He had to go home before this bloke rumbled him and decapitated his kids.
But, hey , enjoy your holiday CR.
Thankfully, we're good mates.
{narrator - none of them knew of CR’s Albanian antecedents.}
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
Yes, I do accept that. If somebody was to sneak in here and eat my cat I'd be ... well I don't even want to think about it.
But we were talking about the hatefest that was Donald Trump's election campaign and how sad it is that almost half the voters in the great nation of America bought into it.
I think people who hate Trump underestimate the fun factor. His campaign was about YMCA and allowing people to lighten up a bit.
So I must have missed that amongst the hate filled bile spewed out by Trump.
Young man, young man, there's no need to feel down. Wear a red hat and hate on immigrants and trans.
Meanwhile, Labour announce yet another expensive and delaying consultation, this time on creating Great British Railway.
Get on with it already. The plan is already there, a transition team are already hired and a headquarters site has been agreed. What is left to consult on?
The purpose is to enrich the lawyers and consultants even more.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
You could turn that round to say Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer reality/national interest to toxic niceness.
But you'd then be talking shit.
It's easy to be nice when it's not your pets that may or may be getting eaten.
Yes, I do accept that. If somebody was to sneak in here and eat my cat I'd be ... well I don't even want to think about it.
But we were talking about the hatefest that was Donald Trump's election campaign and how sad it is that almost half the voters in the great nation of America bought into it.
I think people who hate Trump underestimate the fun factor. His campaign was about YMCA and allowing people to lighten up a bit.
Well, ok, but not me. I do hate him but I can see how the unengaged and unserious can find him (at times) an entertaining spectacle. It's a large part of why he's where he is (Oval Office) rather than where he should be (Jail Cell).
Interesting comments from Kremlin spokesperson Peskov .
Russia isn’t against EU membership for Ukraine . But an EU army would be an issue for them given his comments about military alliances .
EU Membership for how much of Ukraine?
A Cyprus-type situation?
I have family there and it’s a tragedy that after all these years the country remains divided . But EU membership for Ukraine would be a real positive and would help sell any deal . The issue though is Hungary and Slovakia who could veto that .
Meanwhile, Labour announce yet another expensive and delaying consultation, this time on creating Great British Railway.
Get on with it already. The plan is already there, a transition team are already hired and a headquarters site has been agreed. What is left to consult on?
More evidence they did absolutely no homework....Labour's prep seemed to be akin to Bart Simpson in the opening credits writing Growth on the blackboard.
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
We first went in 1988 just after it opened. It was relatively inexpensive for the first 10 or 15 years or so. At that time everyone stayed in the same type of small villa, and one of the main buildings in the village square was the church (although even then hardly anyone used it).
Farage said, “the Conservative party is not on the right in any measurable way.”
He said their 14 years in government saw “the highest tax burden since 1947 … legal, mass immigration on a scale hitherto never even dreamt … illegal migration, small boats crossing the Channel, and the government completely incapable of dealing with it, because they couldn’t face up to what membership of the European convention on human rights was all about, and 14 years that saw net zero enshrined into law by a Conservative government.”
Farage said “I’m an environmentalist in the old school sense” and suggested a focus on carbon had “actually blinded us to other environmental disasters that are going on.”
Also nonsense. What are the biggest non-CO2 related environmental disasters in developed countries like the UK?
- Particulate and NOx pollution which kill thousands every year. - Mass biodiversity loss and the crashing insect and bird population thanks to industrial farming and pesticides - sterilised grassland due to overgrazing - Polluted coastal and inland watercourses, including the Eutrophication of the dead Wye
None of the solutions to those are in opposition to reductions in our carbon emissions. At worst the effect is neutral. In most cases the policies that help to reduce carbon also help to reduce those harms too.
This is the stuff of Bjorn Lomborg circa 2005 and a false choice.
Watching the Trump team at work and watching the Starmer team at work is there any wonder that we have a growing support for "just get it done" politicians here?
I'd be far happier with collecting my Amazon package from my local post office than having to wait around for Evri to hoy it over the gate or lie about me being out or it being delivered to the right door number in the wrong village.
The limited opening hours of Post Offices would somewhat limit their usefulness as a pick up point, I think. My local Co-Op acts as an Amazon pick up and they're open until 10pm.
We do probably need some kind of government initiative to set up a bunch of 'service hubs' that open late and provide banking, postal and courier drop off / pick up services. Such a thing would be very handy for people like me who live in areas with no post office or bank.
All the corner shops with a Post Office inside, in West London, only open the Post Office counter for some slight variant of 8am-6pm.
Is there a contractual thing? The shop themselves are very often open till midnight, every day….
Watching the Trump team at work and watching the Starmer team at work is there any wonder that we have a growing support for "just get it done" politicians here?
The "get the trains run on time" argument that so many on the dodgy right fell for in the 1930s?
(And also the dodgy left fell for in a much bigger way over Stalin's 5 Year Plans).
If Cooper and others are serious about savings, they need to be prepared to send people into Whitehall who are not afraid to make enemies there, and not afraid to break hobby horses.
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
There's a guy in my cycling club who was an undercover cop. He went to Centre Parcs and ran into Albania's top organised crime murderer in the pool. He had to go home before this bloke rumbled him and decapitated his kids.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
No one is having a go at her because she's a woman.
We won't agree on this. But you see that falling into the abyss Tory poll score? Stuff like this is why. Go ask women voters their opinion. Not the remaining handful of Tory ones, the voters you've lost.
When your lot have elected just one woman leader, as opposed to our four, then we can talk mate.
Until then I'll take this stuff with a massive pinch of salt.
Yesterday I mentioned a major Court Case in Washington DC brought by 13 States about whether Musk as head of Doge was Constitutional under Judge Chutkan.
If it succeeds it will be appealed up, which will cause delay. It may then be lost or won at Appeal or SCOTUS level, in which case Doge stands, or some modifications are required, or a real Department has to be created - which is via Congress and involved Musk making all the usual disclosures that he may not like doing.
Here is a short report which is quite good on the legal processes involved. Opinionated, but clear. 14 minutes.
I think they have already tried to sidestep that by saying Musk is not is fact head of DOGE. He is just a Presidential advisor, with no administrative responsibilities.
Watching the Trump team at work and watching the Starmer team at work is there any wonder that we have a growing support for "just get it done" politicians here?
Musk demonstrated again that when he puts the grown up in charge he can organise shit getting done. Not only catching up but surpassing everybody in LLMs in only 18 months and building a 200k GPU cluster from scratch is quite incredible achievement.
Its makes decision to let the teenagers loose on DOGE a strange decision when he has legit people working for him in his other companies.
Meanwhile, Labour announce yet another expensive and delaying consultation, this time on creating Great British Railway.
Get on with it already. The plan is already there, a transition team are already hired and a headquarters site has been agreed. What is left to consult on?
Inside the industry, this is known only to be a branding concept and the headline policy doesn't go beyond "nationalise the railways".
No-one knows what GBR will be for or how it's going to work.
You can actually write a post without making it a question!
Wow.
As for your 'point', from the article:
" Commenting on an image of Mars, it is notable that Isaacman chose to focus on the benefits of sending humans to the red planet."
He also apes Musk's stupid rhetoric: "Additionally, Isaacman said taking the first steps toward humanity living beyond Earth was critical to the long-term survival of the species, and that such an achievement would inspire a new generation of scientific and technological leaders."
NASA is currently committed to going back to the Moon. Musk traditionally (*) said that the Moon was a distraction, and we should be going to Mars instead. And if NASA and the government does change tack to Mars, there's only one company with the kit to get there. His friend's.
(*) Before he was given billions by NASA to go to the Moon...
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
No one is having a go at her because she's a woman.
But I bet using that insult for Reeves is largely avoided by women.
YouGov have a thread of other stats from that block of polling here. None of the numbers are particularly great for anyone.
Looking terminal for the Tories tbh, Farage's weak point in 2029 is probably Ukraine but Badenoch is going about nullifying that one for him tbh, and who knows where we will be then.
Yes, she's a poor leader. She's a one trick pony (on free speech and identity politics) and doesn't seem to have any creativity or depth beyond that.
The Tories will survive but they'll sort of be a right-wing LDs in the low teens, I think.
If Cooper and others are serious about savings, they need to be prepared to send people into Whitehall who are not afraid to make enemies there, and not afraid to break hobby horses.
But what else will they break in the process?
I'm amused that DOGE has become a wet dream for UK right-wingers, who seem to already be calling it a massive success.
I fear their dream will be more of a nightmare. But they won't care, because they've had the warm and fuzzies. And don't live in the US...
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
There's a guy in my cycling club who was an undercover cop. He went to Centre Parcs and ran into Albania's top organised crime murderer in the pool. He had to go home before this bloke rumbled him and decapitated his kids.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
No one is having a go at her because she's a woman.
We won't agree on this. But you see that falling into the abyss Tory poll score? Stuff like this is why. Go ask women voters their opinion. Not the remaining handful of Tory ones, the voters you've lost.
When your lot have elected just one woman leader, as opposed to our four, then we can talk mate.
Until then I'll take this stuff with a massive pinch of salt.
My lot? I'm not Labour am I?
And again, don't take my opinion. Go ask voters. What I think is irrelevant. What they think? A bit more important to the Tories future prospects.
BTW, the "we've had more women leaders than Labour" thing doesn't get you very far. A lot of women will tell you what its like seeing a token female lifted to the top and then the glass ceiling reinstated below them.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
Yesterday I mentioned a major Court Case in Washington DC brought by 13 States about whether Musk as head of Doge was Constitutional under Judge Chutkan.
If it succeeds it will be appealed up, which will cause delay. It may then be lost or won at Appeal or SCOTUS level, in which case Doge stands, or some modifications are required, or a real Department has to be created - which is via Congress and involved Musk making all the usual disclosures that he may not like doing.
Here is a short report which is quite good on the legal processes involved. Opinionated, but clear. 14 minutes.
I think they have already tried to sidestep that by saying Musk is not is fact head of DOGE. He is just a Presidential advisor, with no administrative responsibilities.
How can he be Head of DOGE? There is no Department of Government Efficiency.
If Cooper and others are serious about savings, they need to be prepared to send people into Whitehall who are not afraid to make enemies there, and not afraid to break hobby horses.
But what else will they break in the process?
I'm amused that DOGE has become a wet dream for UK right-wingers, who seem to already be calling it a massive success.
I fear their dream will be more of a nightmare. But they won't care, because they've had the warm and fuzzies. And don't live in the US...
I'm on the right, and not enthused by people so incompetent they accidentally fired the workers responsible for maintaining the nuclear arsenal.
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
There's a guy in my cycling club who was an undercover cop. He went to Centre Parcs and ran into Albania's top organised crime murderer in the pool. He had to go home before this bloke rumbled him and decapitated his kids.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
No one is having a go at her because she's a woman.
We won't agree on this. But you see that falling into the abyss Tory poll score? Stuff like this is why. Go ask women voters their opinion. Not the remaining handful of Tory ones, the voters you've lost.
When your lot have elected just one woman leader, as opposed to our four, then we can talk mate.
Until then I'll take this stuff with a massive pinch of salt.
My lot? I'm not Labour am I?
And again, don't take my opinion. Go ask voters. What I think is irrelevant. What they think? A bit more important to the Tories future prospects.
BTW, the "we've had more women leaders than Labour" thing doesn't get you very far. A lot of women will tell you what its like seeing a token female lifted to the top and then the glass ceiling reinstated below them.
There's nothing tokenistic about the female leaders the Tories have elected and the "glass ceiling" is decades out of date, and only exists in your mind. One day, you will learn this.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
No, you're right.
We never attacked Gordon Brown or Alastair Darling as Chancellor.
Not once.
You absolutely did - as the other side did a succession of chancellors. My objection is *how* she's being attacked. Go for her pack of lies CV - that's absolutely fair in love and politics. What I object to is belittling her for her crime of being a woman. The "from accounts" line has a very specific inference and it wouldn't have been deployed against any of her shit predecessors, because they were men.
No one is having a go at her because she's a woman.
But I bet using that insult for Reeves is largely avoided by women.
If Cooper and others are serious about savings, they need to be prepared to send people into Whitehall who are not afraid to make enemies there, and not afraid to break hobby horses.
But what else will they break in the process?
I'm amused that DOGE has become a wet dream for UK right-wingers, who seem to already be calling it a massive success.
I fear their dream will be more of a nightmare. But they won't care, because they've had the warm and fuzzies. And don't live in the US...
I'm on the right, and not enthused by people so incompetent they accidentally fired the workers responsible for maintaining the nuclear arsenal.
Watching the Trump team at work and watching the Starmer team at work is there any wonder that we have a growing support for "just get it done" politicians here?
The "get the trains run on time" argument that so many on the dodgy right fell for in the 1930s?
(And also the dodgy left fell for in a much bigger way over Stalin's 5 Year Plans).
I'm not saying the people supporting this are correct. But they are saying they support the strong man approach. The way to head that off is to get things done so that you don't need a strong man to smash things up.
You can actually write a post without making it a question!
Wow.
As for your 'point', from the article:
" Commenting on an image of Mars, it is notable that Isaacman chose to focus on the benefits of sending humans to the red planet."
He also apes Musk's stupid rhetoric: "Additionally, Isaacman said taking the first steps toward humanity living beyond Earth was critical to the long-term survival of the species, and that such an achievement would inspire a new generation of scientific and technological leaders."
NASA is currently committed to going back to the Moon. Musk traditionally (*) said that the Moon was a distraction, and we should be going to Mars instead. And if NASA and the government does change tack to Mars, there's only one company with the kit to get there. His friend's.
(*) Before he was given billions by NASA to go to the Moon...
Watching the Trump team at work and watching the Starmer team at work is there any wonder that we have a growing support for "just get it done" politicians here?
The "get the trains run on time" argument that so many on the dodgy right fell for in the 1930s?
(And also the dodgy left fell for in a much bigger way over Stalin's 5 Year Plans).
It's a bit of a myth.
Our trains are actually quite good, and more reliable than most of SNCF or Deutsche Bahn.
YouGov have a thread of other stats from that block of polling here. None of the numbers are particularly great for anyone.
Looking terminal for the Tories tbh, Farage's weak point in 2029 is probably Ukraine but Badenoch is going about nullifying that one for him tbh, and who knows where we will be then.
Subs... but the female split between Con/Lab/Ref is very close. It'd be really nice to have to properly weighted polling on this.
Kemi making net gains from 2024 Labour and LD voters and amongst under 50s on that new Yougov poll table but leaking significantly to Reform amongst over 50s
I'm at Centre Parcs for half-term. First time. Apart from likely bankrupting me, it is decidedly middle-class.
Everyone's child seems to be called Oscar or Nancy.
We first went in 1988 just after it opened. It was relatively inexpensive for the first 10 or 15 years or so. At that time everyone stayed in the same type of small villa, and one of the main buildings in the village square was the church (although even then hardly anyone used it).
Shows you how times have changed. A church wouldn't even be considered now.
The microcosm of Britain is interesting though. About 15% are bald headed blokes, and almost all of them are vaping, but most are middle-class families. A few doing the (sigh) oak-milk shit in their coffees. Most calling their evening meal supper. But the good news is that hardly anyone is obese.
YouGov have a thread of other stats from that block of polling here. None of the numbers are particularly great for anyone.
Looking terminal for the Tories tbh, Farage's weak point in 2029 is probably Ukraine but Badenoch is going about nullifying that one for him tbh, and who knows where we will be then.
Subs... but the female split between Con/Lab/Ref is very close. It'd be really nice to have to properly weighted polling on this.
Kemi making significant net gains from 2024 Labour and LD voters and amongst under 50s on that new Yougov poll table but leaking significantly to Reform amongst over 50s
I'm guessing Lab are losing support to the LDs and Greens.
All criticism of Rayner is just because she's a feisty northern working class woman.
All criticism of Reeves is because she's a woman who went to a state-school and did ok and was mocked at the time.
At no point whatsoever can their competence or capability be in question. It's all prejudice.
It explains their fundamental chippiness. Because prejudice and identity-based grievance is all they have.
Its hard to deny that prejudice isn't present. Tories don't like gobby northerners of any kind - especially the odd one who navigates through their own ranks. And Reeves? They wouldn't have attacked a male chancellor as "from accounts" no matter how shit they were.
I don't rate either of them that highly. But you can't deny the sneering that is done towards them for who they are, not what they do.
YouGov have a thread of other stats from that block of polling here. None of the numbers are particularly great for anyone.
Looking terminal for the Tories tbh, Farage's weak point in 2029 is probably Ukraine but Badenoch is going about nullifying that one for him tbh, and who knows where we will be then.
Subs... but the female split between Con/Lab/Ref is very close. It'd be really nice to have to properly weighted polling on this.
Kemi making significant net gains from 2024 Labour and LD voters and amongst under 50s on that new Yougov poll table but leaking significantly to Reform amongst over 50s
I'm guessing Lab are losing support to the LDs and Greens.
Kemi is also gaining 4% of 2024 Labour voters to the Tories but losing only 2% of 2024 Tories to Labour.
Though Labour mainly leaking to the LDs and Reform
Meanwhile, Labour announce yet another expensive and delaying consultation, this time on creating Great British Railway.
Get on with it already. The plan is already there, a transition team are already hired and a headquarters site has been agreed. What is left to consult on?
Inside the industry, this is known only to be a branding concept and the headline policy doesn't go beyond "nationalise the railways".
No-one knows what GBR will be for or how it's going to work.
Some of the people with a business need to slow this down are saying that. The concepts aren't difficult - franchising is abolished, passenger services are run by an arms length agency for public service metrics rather than contract requirements, open access are free to come in and do what they are good at.
The structural questions are on the interface between operators and infrastructure but that isn't a reason to delay creating the new structure to put them into and to start going after the absurd rolling stock contracts next. Happily we're already starting to see some movement with an end to assets being left to rot because the private owner refused to lease them at the market rate. Next up needs to be leccy prices which have largely stopped freight services being electrically hauled.
Since you’re an assiduous supporter of Ukraine defending itself against Putin, do you think this is a good or a bad thing?
I think that there has to be a starting point to talks aimed at ending the war.
I don’t think the Russians have any intention of ending the war though, they’re too far down the rabbit hole for what they’ve actually achieved.
We’ll know soon from Rubio whether there’s anything that looks like good faith from Lavrov, and then Ukraine and European countries need to clearly and effectively state their case. Kellogg (and to some extent JD Vance) will have got the message loud and clear from the Europeans in the last few days, that the US alone aren’t going to be able to do a deal.
I suspect we are in for several weeks of sherpas running around and political proclamations from all involved, to be followed by an outline of what all sides might consider to be an acceptable outcome to the conflict.
That perhaps sets the timescale for a substantive and substantial initial response to emerge from Europe.
These talks won't end the war - they will just be for half time and oranges, until Putin is ready for the second half.
The points need to be switched on the railway track to the stitch-up which Trump and Putin are attempting to impose, in some way. The further along it is, the more difficult the direction will be to change.
Zelensky will have to take the best of the options he is offered, even if it means there will be a renewal of the assault by Russia in m2, 4 or 6 years.
Zelensky can and will say “no”
But he needs Europe to stand strongly with him
One of the big problems with the US starting from a negotiating position that Ukraine will reject, is that the deal is unlikely to get better for them during the negotiations . Ukraine will reject it, and then the pro-Russian shills and bots will make Ukraine out to be the bad guys.
That'll make it harder for them to get support.
Which is why a strong early position is important - Zelensky rejecting any deal Ukraine hasn’t been a part of negotiating is a good first step.
But any country who doesn’t currently support Ukraine isn’t going to start now. So the trolls are not as important as you think.
But they are important to countries that currently do support Ukraine.
Remember, Putin wants to break the alliance that is helping Ukraine. He ay have already removed America from the board, or be in the process of doing so, and other countries are wavering.
Public opinion matters to our democracies.
Point of order: Putin didn't remove the USA from the pro-Ukraine nations. The American electorate did that (or Trump, if you prefer).
But Russian propaganda on social media framed the argument.
Trump won because of immigration, rising prices and wokery plus the uselessness of the Dems.
It had sod all to do with the Russians.
Trump won because a slight plurality of Americans prefer hate to kindness. As a long time Americanophile I wish that wasn't so. But it is. One thing you can say about Trump - he doesn't hide who he is. Voters knew and made their choice.
I would regret if Democrats decided they also need to be nasty to win. But I sort of understand it.
No, otherwise Trump would have beaten Biden in 2020.
It was cost of living that won it for Trump this year and the impact of his tariffs on that will determine whether Vance wins in 2028 and the 2026 midterms
One thing the EU (And others incl us in it's orbit) need to agree is "Where is the front line of Europe".
Britain and France say it's beyond the Dneiper, Poland and Germany seem to indicate it's west of Lviv.
Any attempt to wrest the initiative from the Russia/USA talks was lost as that fundamental point didn't seem to be agreed between European leaders in Paris yesterday.
UEFA have it much further east.
And Eurovision have it in the Southern Hemisphere.
We have another Tuesday local by-election. This time in Brent with a Lib Dem defence. It is a sad case where the sitting councillor has been forced to resign following police advice about his personal safety.
All the corner shops with a Post Office inside, in West London, only open the Post Office counter for some slight variant of 8am-6pm.
Is there a contractual thing? The shop themselves are very often open till midnight, every day….
Possibly contractual, but also possibly staffing issues. The people who operate the post office counter have to be trained and certified by the PO, the normal staff can't do it. So opening long hours would mean needing more trained staff. And that may not be financially viable, from what I understand these shops make very little money from the PO and Royal Mail - maybe different now, but a few years ago I was told if you send a package with a label bought online from RM the shop makes precisely nothing when you bring it in to send.
I make a point of buying a bag of sweets from the shop when I send packages so they're at least getting a little money out of the deal.
This could be an error by the compilers at who's who of course, but I see that entries fill out a questionnaire for them and presumably are asked to crosscheck the final entry. Probably something a busy CoE delegates... if Labour was a tightly run operation someone would be picking these up. Trivial but Labour should understand that they have to be almost infinitely more careful on this stuff
If it was one occurrence you’d accept it was an error, correct it and move one.
There’s a pattern.
Too late by the time it appears in print.
I meant correct the record.
If this was the only occurrence she could say “I’m sorry. Clearly a mistake. I’ll make sure it is corrected in the next edition” and people would be fine with that
But how do you do that with a book? And why bother?
The only practical significance is whether one can still find the bloody paper - and a google woudl still work on the title plus journal.
WiW isn't a job application, and people need to realise that.
Comments
I'd be far happier with collecting my Amazon package from my local post office than having to wait around for Evri to hoy it over the gate or lie about me being out or it being delivered to the right door number in the wrong village.
Won't help WHSmith, but may be something that can be done to reinvent the Post Office.
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (16-17 Feb)
Ref: 27% (+1 from 9-10 Feb)
Lab: 25% (=)
Con: 21% (=)
Lib Dem: 14% (=)
Green: 9% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
If it succeeds it will be appealed up, which will cause delay. It may then be lost or won at Appeal or SCOTUS level, in which case Doge stands, or some modifications are required, or a real Department has to be created - which is via Congress and involved Musk making all the usual disclosures that he may not like doing.
Here is a short report which is quite good on the legal processes involved. Opinionated, but clear. 14 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lasJRXd1nQ
Even Vance in his mealy mouthed Jesuitical way accepted pets were going about their business unconsumed.
At a time of war, nothing will ever get built, and no soldiers will ever get trained.
One massive advantage of the UK being outside the EU, is that it makes an EU army somewhat less likely.
But ok, a bit of rhetorical tit/tat from you there. That's a relief. You don't post much these days (all good, I hope) but I remember you used to hate all the 'national populist' nonsense. I was afraid you'd gone bad.
Britain and France say it's beyond the Dneiper, Poland and Germany seem to indicate it's west of Lviv.
Any attempt to wrest the initiative from the Russia/USA talks was lost as that fundamental point didn't seem to be agreed between European leaders in Paris yesterday.
But we were talking about the hatefest that was Donald Trump's election campaign and how sad it is that almost half the voters in the great nation of America bought into it.
A European Army On the Dnieper (EAOD) with different countries' units, co-ordinated by Ukraine High Command.
Russia isn’t against EU membership for Ukraine . But an EU army would be an issue for them given his comments about military alliances .
But the final step in that process- a network of places where everyone knows what to look for and is assured of a consistent reliability and dignity- that probably needs state activism that we haven't had for decades.
C'mon Keir. If we must have a socialist government, let's have some of the advantages well.
I hate populism because it offers simplistic solutions to complex problems and relies on ignorance. Not the same thing as national interest though. I agree with 'America First' (for Americans) just as I believe in 'Britain First' for us.
Who will be in charge is a thorny issue. Both the UK and France would be happy to be slavishly subservient to a US commander but couldn't take the ego death of being a junior partner to the other.
Both strands have been there for a while, long before July 2024. But the imbalance is new. Not helped by some people feeling powerless for the first time since the 70s. (Plenty on the right saw Blair and Brown as decent chaps-shame about the rosette.)
Give the opposing side enough open goals to aim for and it matters little how bad their player is.
That Trump was the GOP candidate is a different issue and there's a lot of blame there for the GOP establishment.
On that it seems that Mitch McConell now realises he messed up.
While Boris has a small net positive rating with Reform voters, unlike Kemi who they give net negative approval, he also massively trails Farage's huge net favourable rating with Reform voters
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1891803205073244312
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1891803207669514365
We do probably need some kind of government initiative to set up a bunch of 'service hubs' that open late and provide banking, postal and courier drop off / pick up services. Such a thing would be very handy for people like me who live in areas with no post office or bank.
Gaetz crashing and burning has allowed everyone else to look thoroughly reasonable, a full MAGA house on appointments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jf_z8n2u7o
He said their 14 years in government saw “the highest tax burden since 1947 … legal, mass immigration on a scale hitherto never even dreamt … illegal migration, small boats crossing the Channel, and the government completely incapable of dealing with it, because they couldn’t face up to what membership of the European convention on human rights was all about, and 14 years that saw net zero enshrined into law by a Conservative government.”
Brutal and true https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/feb/18/defence-secretary-john-healey-armed-forces-nigel-farage-reform-uk-politics-live-news-updates
This is a distressingly common practice.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/02/nasa-nominee-previews-his-vision-for-the-agency-mars-hard-work-inspiration/
Trump's government really is a kleptocracy.
Farage said “I’m an environmentalist in the old school sense” and suggested a focus on carbon had “actually blinded us to other environmental disasters that are going on.”
Get on with it already. The plan is already there, a transition team are already hired and a headquarters site has been agreed. What is left to consult on?
https://order-order.com/2025/02/18/business-secretarys-cv-inflation-exposed/
So not only no business experience, no experience at all.
Subs... but the female split between Con/Lab/Ref is very close. It'd be really nice to have to properly weighted polling on this.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15166116/
Wear a red hat and hate on immigrants and trans.
M.A.G.A.
It's fun to hang at the M.A.G.A.
- Particulate and NOx pollution which kill thousands every year.
- Mass biodiversity loss and the crashing insect and bird population thanks to industrial farming and pesticides
- sterilised grassland due to overgrazing
- Polluted coastal and inland watercourses, including the Eutrophication of the dead Wye
None of the solutions to those are in opposition to reductions in our carbon emissions. At worst the effect is neutral. In most cases the policies that help to reduce carbon also help to reduce those harms too.
This is the stuff of Bjorn Lomborg circa 2005 and a false choice.
Is there a contractual thing? The shop themselves are very often open till midnight, every day….
(And also the dodgy left fell for in a much bigger way over Stalin's 5 Year Plans).
https://doge.gov/savings
If Cooper and others are serious about savings, they need to be prepared to send people into Whitehall who are not afraid to make enemies there, and not afraid to break hobby horses.
They've got to get to the Moon frst.
Until then I'll take this stuff with a massive pinch of salt.
Its makes decision to let the teenagers loose on DOGE a strange decision when he has legit people working for him in his other companies.
No-one knows what GBR will be for or how it's going to work.
You can actually write a post without making it a question!
Wow.
As for your 'point', from the article:
" Commenting on an image of Mars, it is notable that Isaacman chose to focus on the benefits of sending humans to the red planet."
He also apes Musk's stupid rhetoric:
"Additionally, Isaacman said taking the first steps toward humanity living beyond Earth was critical to the long-term survival of the species, and that such an achievement would inspire a new generation of scientific and technological leaders."
NASA is currently committed to going back to the Moon. Musk traditionally (*) said that the Moon was a distraction, and we should be going to Mars instead. And if NASA and the government does change tack to Mars, there's only one company with the kit to get there. His friend's.
(*) Before he was given billions by NASA to go to the Moon...
The Tories will survive but they'll sort of be a right-wing LDs in the low teens, I think.
I'm amused that DOGE has become a wet dream for UK right-wingers, who seem to already be calling it a massive success.
I fear their dream will be more of a nightmare. But they won't care, because they've had the warm and fuzzies. And don't live in the US...
And again, don't take my opinion. Go ask voters. What I think is irrelevant. What they think? A bit more important to the Tories future prospects.
BTW, the "we've had more women leaders than Labour" thing doesn't get you very far. A lot of women will tell you what its like seeing a token female lifted to the top and then the glass ceiling reinstated below them.
Next.
Our trains are actually quite good, and more reliable than most of SNCF or Deutsche Bahn.
It's just they're bloody expensive.
The microcosm of Britain is interesting though. About 15% are bald headed blokes, and almost all of them are vaping, but most are middle-class families. A few doing the (sigh) oak-milk shit in their coffees. Most calling their evening meal supper. But the good news is that hardly anyone is obese.
Though Labour mainly leaking to the LDs and Reform
The structural questions are on the interface between operators and infrastructure but that isn't a reason to delay creating the new structure to put them into and to start going after the absurd rolling stock contracts next. Happily we're already starting to see some movement with an end to assets being left to rot because the private owner refused to lease them at the market rate. Next up needs to be leccy prices which have largely stopped freight services being electrically hauled.
It was cost of living that won it for Trump this year and the impact of his tariffs on that will determine whether Vance wins in 2028 and the 2026 midterms
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=21&LAB=25&LIB=14&Reform=27&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
I make a point of buying a bag of sweets from the shop when I send packages so they're at least getting a little money out of the deal.
The only practical significance is whether one can still find the bloody paper - and a google woudl still work on the title plus journal.
WiW isn't a job application, and people need to realise that.