I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
At breakfast I was having an interesting little dig into Mrs James Orr aka Rev Helen Orr, who is a Church of England vicar, and daughter of Simon Barrington-Ward, who was a REALLY interesting Bishop of Coventry about 3 decades ago, and also head of the Church Missionary Society for a decade, and interested in contemplative spirituality. She herself is interested in societal questions such as how girls can grow into women in our current cultural environment. But the trail stopped when I needed to follow it to substack.
Fascinating situational dynamics for someone who is SWMBO to one of JD Vance's key mentors.
Good morning everyone.
Looks like his wife is a C of E vicar in Cambridgeshire. C of E vicars like civil servants (and often CEOs and directors of large companies) are normally discouraged from getting too involved in party politics though there is nothing to stop their spouses doing so
Yes - the last week or two I've been listening to a little Youtubing from a Vicar in Chalfont St Giles called Rev Dan Beasley (about 20k subs - so notable but not substantial), as he does some of reflecting around movements such as ARC, and movements in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. He takes care with the limitations imposed on him by his public role where he has the "cure of souls" of the whole parish.
But he's told his bishop that he will find it very difficult to stay in the CofE if gay marriage comes in. I can't quite catch the precise tenor of his stance (probably "mainstream traditional evangelical still wrestling to find his view"), but the basics are reminiscent of that taken in 1991 by people like David Holloway when Reform was set up. That positioning is clear, but to me seems less self-consciously sharp-elbowed and has his face set less "like flint" than say William Taylor or other "Reformed" people.
His take on attending ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) was interesting, where he contrasted attending in person, with newspapers reporting over the internet. His critique is that "ARC" the movement was promoting "cultural Christianity" rather than "the Gospel itself". "Cultural Christianity" is likely to be code for "the form of the religion, but not the heart thereof" in evangelical language, and is deployed in all sort of ways.
This is his vid - quite long, but it gives a good idea of the tensions vicars in that stream are dealing with, and where they are coming from. There's useful summary in the last few minutes if anyone just to dip in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV98xcd12xM
* For anyone not following, ARC is the Jordan Peterson / Baroness Philippa Stroud movement looking to "Create a Better Story" (ie imo trying to create a new societal culture to follow on from what we have now). I had not realised that ARC 2025 in London had nearly 5000 people attending paying around £1000 each for 3 days just for the conference itself.
I'm going to a PPC meeting tonight in which there will be a lot of pressure (and possibly a decision) to leave the CofE (normal parish churches can't, but we're a rather odd setup and theoretically can).
The choice of Sarah Mullay as Archbishop of Canterbury is remarkably poor - even if you don't care about questions of gay marriage or female leadership (the two big questions over which the CoE, and indeed worldwide Anglicanism is currently ripping itself to shreds) she's the most "process state, managerialist decline" pick imaginable. Could they not have found someone marginally more (small c) charismatic?
I wish you well - for the meeting and for the outcome. Meetings like that can be very stressful.
Rather pathetic though that many in that PCC cannot even accept prayers for same sex couples in other C of E churches, given they still get an opt out, or a female Archbishop when 2/3 of Synod approved female bishops in the C of E over a decade ago and they get their own flying bishop anyway!
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
I know what concerns the safety board had: a combination of Muslims in Birmingham burning Israeli flags, while the Maccabee fans burned Palestinian ones was only going to end in one way.
Where there was a a complete failure from the authorities was in not asking the question: how we can allow fans to get to the game without a risk of violent conflagurations? Especially given this kind of thing is hardly unknown.
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
I know what concerns the safety board had: a combination of Muslims in Birmingham burning Israeli flags, while the Maccabee fans burned Palestinian ones was only going to end in one way.
Where there was a a complete failure from the authorities was in not asking the question: how we can allow fans to get to the game without a risk of violent conflagurations? Especially given this kind of thing is hardly unknown.
I tend to agree - although we don't 'know' for certain, we just suspect. Thats why the concerns need to be made public AND an explanation of why the fans cannot be managed as you suggest.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
I suspect Xi is getting near the end of an impressive run. His successor's attitude to Putin, Russia and Siberia will be interesting. There are huge areas there with extensive resources that Russia is no longer capable of defending conventionally having destroyed its army in Ukraine and the Russian economy becoming ever more parlous with every red sky at night. Taiwan may not be the only issue.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
At breakfast I was having an interesting little dig into Mrs James Orr aka Rev Helen Orr, who is a Church of England vicar, and daughter of Simon Barrington-Ward, who was a REALLY interesting Bishop of Coventry about 3 decades ago, and also head of the Church Missionary Society for a decade, and interested in contemplative spirituality. She herself is interested in societal questions such as how girls can grow into women in our current cultural environment. But the trail stopped when I needed to follow it to substack.
Fascinating situational dynamics for someone who is SWMBO to one of JD Vance's key mentors.
Good morning everyone.
Looks like his wife is a C of E vicar in Cambridgeshire. C of E vicars like civil servants (and often CEOs and directors of large companies) are normally discouraged from getting too involved in party politics though there is nothing to stop their spouses doing so
Yes - the last week or two I've been listening to a little Youtubing from a Vicar in Chalfont St Giles called Rev Dan Beasley (about 20k subs - so notable but not substantial), as he does some of reflecting around movements such as ARC, and movements in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. He takes care with the limitations imposed on him by his public role where he has the "cure of souls" of the whole parish.
But he's told his bishop that he will find it very difficult to stay in the CofE if gay marriage comes in. I can't quite catch the precise tenor of his stance (probably "mainstream traditional evangelical still wrestling to find his view"), but the basics are reminiscent of that taken in 1991 by people like David Holloway when Reform was set up. That positioning is clear, but to me seems less self-consciously sharp-elbowed and has his face set less "like flint" than say William Taylor or other "Reformed" people.
His take on attending ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) was interesting, where he contrasted attending in person, with newspapers reporting over the internet. His critique is that "ARC" the movement was promoting "cultural Christianity" rather than "the Gospel itself". "Cultural Christianity" is likely to be code for "the form of the religion, but not the heart thereof" in evangelical language, and is deployed in all sort of ways.
This is his vid - quite long, but it gives a good idea of the tensions vicars in that stream are dealing with, and where they are coming from. There's useful summary in the last few minutes if anyone just to dip in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV98xcd12xM
* For anyone not following, ARC is the Jordan Peterson / Baroness Philippa Stroud movement looking to "Create a Better Story" (ie imo trying to create a new societal culture to follow on from what we have now). I had not realised that ARC 2025 in London had nearly 5000 people attending paying around £1000 each for 3 days just for the conference itself.
The important bit of this interesting post is the seven words I have put in bold.
It's potentially a vector for American style politics into here, whatever your view of the content.
5000 are significant numbers of movers and shakers, which is on the scale of a party conference. There have also been "summer schools" running since 2010 alongside Christian Concern for Our Nation, called the Wilberforce Academy, for about 15 years now.
I tend to be sceptical, but again it's not something I have dug into deeply, other than knowing the predecessor movements from the 90s and noughties. I believe in the engagement and process of relation of faith to society, but not in the imo overly exclusive and morally authoritarian point of view that this group exhibits.
Yes. And 5000x£1000 = £5,000,000. Which for someone is a nice little earner. It's a growth industry, not wholly run by poverty embracing altruistic idealism I suspect.
Interesting comment from their 2025 South African event. I didn't know I needed saved.
Throughout the week it was impressed on Southern Africans in attendance to not take the fruits of Christianity for granted. Cultural fruit, no matter how seemingly secure, can be lost if severed from its root. Of this stark reality, the UK is a disturbing example – a nation now fighting for its Christian soul in the areas of end-of-life care, marriage, God-given sexual identity, protection of women-only spaces and a host of others.
Same sex marriage of course also now legal in South Africa and the USA
A fairly uniform theme of culturally conservative Christian groups when they condemn various groups is that they studiously avoid direct dealing with divorce and remarriage, even though Jesus (and Paul) ban this altogether and class it with adultery (even the well known 'Matthew exception' does this). This has to be because the subject risks othering the wrong people - their own family, friends, congregations and sometimes themselves. Which would never do.
The real crisis for Christianity in the US and UK is how many people and politicians have turned away from the central Christian tenet of being nice to refugees.
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
I know what concerns the safety board had: a combination of Muslims in Birmingham burning Israeli flags, while the Maccabee fans burned Palestinian ones was only going to end in one way.
Where there was a a complete failure from the authorities was in not asking the question: how we can allow fans to get to the game without a risk of violent conflagurations? Especially given this kind of thing is hardly unknown.
I tend to agree - although we don't 'know' for certain, we just suspect. Thats why the concerns need to be made public AND an explanation of why the fans cannot be managed as you suggest.
True.
It was - irrespective - a cowardly and lazy response by authorities.
At breakfast I was having an interesting little dig into Mrs James Orr aka Rev Helen Orr, who is a Church of England vicar, and daughter of Simon Barrington-Ward, who was a REALLY interesting Bishop of Coventry about 3 decades ago, and also head of the Church Missionary Society for a decade, and interested in contemplative spirituality. She herself is interested in societal questions such as how girls can grow into women in our current cultural environment. But the trail stopped when I needed to follow it to substack.
Fascinating situational dynamics for someone who is SWMBO to one of JD Vance's key mentors.
Good morning everyone.
Looks like his wife is a C of E vicar in Cambridgeshire. C of E vicars like civil servants (and often CEOs and directors of large companies) are normally discouraged from getting too involved in party politics though there is nothing to stop their spouses doing so
Yes - the last week or two I've been listening to a little Youtubing from a Vicar in Chalfont St Giles called Rev Dan Beasley (about 20k subs - so notable but not substantial), as he does some of reflecting around movements such as ARC, and movements in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. He takes care with the limitations imposed on him by his public role where he has the "cure of souls" of the whole parish.
But he's told his bishop that he will find it very difficult to stay in the CofE if gay marriage comes in. I can't quite catch the precise tenor of his stance (probably "mainstream traditional evangelical still wrestling to find his view"), but the basics are reminiscent of that taken in 1991 by people like David Holloway when Reform was set up. That positioning is clear, but to me seems less self-consciously sharp-elbowed and has his face set less "like flint" than say William Taylor or other "Reformed" people.
His take on attending ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) was interesting, where he contrasted attending in person, with newspapers reporting over the internet. His critique is that "ARC" the movement was promoting "cultural Christianity" rather than "the Gospel itself". "Cultural Christianity" is likely to be code for "the form of the religion, but not the heart thereof" in evangelical language, and is deployed in all sort of ways.
This is his vid - quite long, but it gives a good idea of the tensions vicars in that stream are dealing with, and where they are coming from. There's useful summary in the last few minutes if anyone just to dip in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV98xcd12xM
* For anyone not following, ARC is the Jordan Peterson / Baroness Philippa Stroud movement looking to "Create a Better Story" (ie imo trying to create a new societal culture to follow on from what we have now). I had not realised that ARC 2025 in London had nearly 5000 people attending paying around £1000 each for 3 days just for the conference itself.
The important bit of this interesting post is the seven words I have put in bold.
It's potentially a vector for American style politics into here, whatever your view of the content.
5000 are significant numbers of movers and shakers, which is on the scale of a party conference. There have also been "summer schools" running since 2010 alongside Christian Concern for Our Nation, called the Wilberforce Academy, for about 15 years now.
I tend to be sceptical, but again it's not something I have dug into deeply, other than knowing the predecessor movements from the 90s and noughties. I believe in the engagement and process of relation of faith to society, but not in the imo overly exclusive and morally authoritarian point of view that this group exhibits.
Yes. And 5000x£1000 = £5,000,000. Which for someone is a nice little earner. It's a growth industry, not wholly run by poverty embracing altruistic idealism I suspect.
Interesting comment from their 2025 South African event. I didn't know I needed saved.
Throughout the week it was impressed on Southern Africans in attendance to not take the fruits of Christianity for granted. Cultural fruit, no matter how seemingly secure, can be lost if severed from its root. Of this stark reality, the UK is a disturbing example – a nation now fighting for its Christian soul in the areas of end-of-life care, marriage, God-given sexual identity, protection of women-only spaces and a host of others.
Same sex marriage of course also now legal in South Africa and the USA
A fairly uniform theme of culturally conservative Christian groups when they condemn various groups is that they studiously avoid direct dealing with divorce and remarriage, even though Jesus (and Paul) ban this altogether and class it with adultery (even the well known 'Matthew exception' does this). This has to be because the subject risks othering the wrong people - their own family, friends, congregations and sometimes themselves. Which would never do.
The real crisis for Christianity in the US and UK is how many people and politicians have turned away from the central Christian tenet of being nice to refugees.
It's even older that Christianity.
Leviticus 19:33–34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
I know what concerns the safety board had: a combination of Muslims in Birmingham burning Israeli flags, while the Maccabee fans burned Palestinian ones was only going to end in one way.
Where there was a a complete failure from the authorities was in not asking the question: how we can allow fans to get to the game without a risk of violent conflagurations? Especially given this kind of thing is hardly unknown.
I tend to agree - although we don't 'know' for certain, we just suspect. Thats why the concerns need to be made public AND an explanation of why the fans cannot be managed as you suggest.
True.
It was - irrespective - a cowardly and lazy response by authorities.
What, even after Starmer's dynamic, inspirational and decisive intervention?
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
Presumably, of the others, one third function as vegetables and the last third as minerals?
Waitress: Would you like to order, sir? Thatcher: Yes. I will have the steak. Waitress: How would you like it? Thatcher: Oh, raw, please. Waitress: And what about the Vegetables? Thatcher: Oh, they'll have the same as me!
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
One angle that pb Tories have missed is that the Israeli police announcement has made Keir Starmer look a bit of a cock.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
Oh indeed.
And if I was Chinese Leader, I'd have dumped North Korea as well.
Offer a reunified Korea a treaty guaranteeing the border and protection from aggression by any other party. Plus *give* them a vast pile of money to rebuild the North (and a cheap loan on top). All with one proviso - Korea stays out of international alliances and hosts no foreign troops of any country (including China) on its soil. Korea can arm itself however it likes.
That would eject the Americans from South Korea in a way they couldn't object to and get rid of the loony next door. And guarantee friendship between the united Korea and China for centuries.,
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
I know what concerns the safety board had: a combination of Muslims in Birmingham burning Israeli flags, while the Maccabee fans burned Palestinian ones was only going to end in one way.
Where there was a a complete failure from the authorities was in not asking the question: how we can allow fans to get to the game without a risk of violent conflagurations? Especially given this kind of thing is hardly unknown.
I tend to agree - although we don't 'know' for certain, we just suspect. Thats why the concerns need to be made public AND an explanation of why the fans cannot be managed as you suggest.
True.
It was - irrespective - a cowardly and lazy response by authorities.
Safety first more like, and possibly saving a lot of people from danger.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
There wasn't a lot of opposition in China - before Xi came to power and started sabre rattling - about the continued improvement in relationships between the two countries. Back in 2009, the Taiwanese even allowed China Mobile to become the biggest shareholder in a local mobile company, FarEastTone. Which considering (a) how strategic telecoms is, and (b) the ban on PRC ownership on anything in Taiwan before then, was an extraordinary thawing.
Now, of course (and following the Hong Kong crackdowns), such a thing would be completely impossible. No one believes "one country, two systems" any more.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
Like 50% of the nations in the UK already have.
Implement PR for councils with a view to rolling it out at a later date for GE’s.
At breakfast I was having an interesting little dig into Mrs James Orr aka Rev Helen Orr, who is a Church of England vicar, and daughter of Simon Barrington-Ward, who was a REALLY interesting Bishop of Coventry about 3 decades ago, and also head of the Church Missionary Society for a decade, and interested in contemplative spirituality. She herself is interested in societal questions such as how girls can grow into women in our current cultural environment. But the trail stopped when I needed to follow it to substack.
Fascinating situational dynamics for someone who is SWMBO to one of JD Vance's key mentors.
Good morning everyone.
Looks like his wife is a C of E vicar in Cambridgeshire. C of E vicars like civil servants (and often CEOs and directors of large companies) are normally discouraged from getting too involved in party politics though there is nothing to stop their spouses doing so
Yes - the last week or two I've been listening to a little Youtubing from a Vicar in Chalfont St Giles called Rev Dan Beasley (about 20k subs - so notable but not substantial), as he does some of reflecting around movements such as ARC, and movements in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. He takes care with the limitations imposed on him by his public role where he has the "cure of souls" of the whole parish.
But he's told his bishop that he will find it very difficult to stay in the CofE if gay marriage comes in. I can't quite catch the precise tenor of his stance (probably "mainstream traditional evangelical still wrestling to find his view"), but the basics are reminiscent of that taken in 1991 by people like David Holloway when Reform was set up. That positioning is clear, but to me seems less self-consciously sharp-elbowed and has his face set less "like flint" than say William Taylor or other "Reformed" people.
His take on attending ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) was interesting, where he contrasted attending in person, with newspapers reporting over the internet. His critique is that "ARC" the movement was promoting "cultural Christianity" rather than "the Gospel itself". "Cultural Christianity" is likely to be code for "the form of the religion, but not the heart thereof" in evangelical language, and is deployed in all sort of ways.
This is his vid - quite long, but it gives a good idea of the tensions vicars in that stream are dealing with, and where they are coming from. There's useful summary in the last few minutes if anyone just to dip in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV98xcd12xM
* For anyone not following, ARC is the Jordan Peterson / Baroness Philippa Stroud movement looking to "Create a Better Story" (ie imo trying to create a new societal culture to follow on from what we have now). I had not realised that ARC 2025 in London had nearly 5000 people attending paying around £1000 each for 3 days just for the conference itself.
The important bit of this interesting post is the seven words I have put in bold.
It's potentially a vector for American style politics into here, whatever your view of the content.
5000 are significant numbers of movers and shakers, which is on the scale of a party conference. There have also been "summer schools" running since 2010 alongside Christian Concern for Our Nation, called the Wilberforce Academy, for about 15 years now.
I tend to be sceptical, but again it's not something I have dug into deeply, other than knowing the predecessor movements from the 90s and noughties. I believe in the engagement and process of relation of faith to society, but not in the imo overly exclusive and morally authoritarian point of view that this group exhibits.
Yes. And 5000x£1000 = £5,000,000. Which for someone is a nice little earner. It's a growth industry, not wholly run by poverty embracing altruistic idealism I suspect.
Interesting comment from their 2025 South African event. I didn't know I needed saved.
Throughout the week it was impressed on Southern Africans in attendance to not take the fruits of Christianity for granted. Cultural fruit, no matter how seemingly secure, can be lost if severed from its root. Of this stark reality, the UK is a disturbing example – a nation now fighting for its Christian soul in the areas of end-of-life care, marriage, God-given sexual identity, protection of women-only spaces and a host of others.
Same sex marriage of course also now legal in South Africa and the USA
A fairly uniform theme of culturally conservative Christian groups when they condemn various groups is that they studiously avoid direct dealing with divorce and remarriage, even though Jesus (and Paul) ban this altogether and class it with adultery (even the well known 'Matthew exception' does this). This has to be because the subject risks othering the wrong people - their own family, friends, congregations and sometimes themselves. Which would never do.
The real crisis for Christianity in the US and UK is how many people and politicians have turned away from the central Christian tenet of being nice to refugees.
It's even older that Christianity.
Leviticus 19:33–34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
And Exodus 22: 21 says much the same. There’s also Deuteronomy 10: 18. Indeed, yes, this was firmly embedded in Jewish tradition, before we get to the New Testament and the absolute banger that is Matthew 25: 31-46.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Xi's policy, though, is that he can get all that without risking a single soldier's life by propping up the Putin regime.
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
At breakfast I was having an interesting little dig into Mrs James Orr aka Rev Helen Orr, who is a Church of England vicar, and daughter of Simon Barrington-Ward, who was a REALLY interesting Bishop of Coventry about 3 decades ago, and also head of the Church Missionary Society for a decade, and interested in contemplative spirituality. She herself is interested in societal questions such as how girls can grow into women in our current cultural environment. But the trail stopped when I needed to follow it to substack.
Fascinating situational dynamics for someone who is SWMBO to one of JD Vance's key mentors.
Good morning everyone.
Looks like his wife is a C of E vicar in Cambridgeshire. C of E vicars like civil servants (and often CEOs and directors of large companies) are normally discouraged from getting too involved in party politics though there is nothing to stop their spouses doing so
Yes - the last week or two I've been listening to a little Youtubing from a Vicar in Chalfont St Giles called Rev Dan Beasley (about 20k subs - so notable but not substantial), as he does some of reflecting around movements such as ARC, and movements in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. He takes care with the limitations imposed on him by his public role where he has the "cure of souls" of the whole parish.
But he's told his bishop that he will find it very difficult to stay in the CofE if gay marriage comes in. I can't quite catch the precise tenor of his stance (probably "mainstream traditional evangelical still wrestling to find his view"), but the basics are reminiscent of that taken in 1991 by people like David Holloway when Reform was set up. That positioning is clear, but to me seems less self-consciously sharp-elbowed and has his face set less "like flint" than say William Taylor or other "Reformed" people.
His take on attending ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) was interesting, where he contrasted attending in person, with newspapers reporting over the internet. His critique is that "ARC" the movement was promoting "cultural Christianity" rather than "the Gospel itself". "Cultural Christianity" is likely to be code for "the form of the religion, but not the heart thereof" in evangelical language, and is deployed in all sort of ways.
This is his vid - quite long, but it gives a good idea of the tensions vicars in that stream are dealing with, and where they are coming from. There's useful summary in the last few minutes if anyone just to dip in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV98xcd12xM
* For anyone not following, ARC is the Jordan Peterson / Baroness Philippa Stroud movement looking to "Create a Better Story" (ie imo trying to create a new societal culture to follow on from what we have now). I had not realised that ARC 2025 in London had nearly 5000 people attending paying around £1000 each for 3 days just for the conference itself.
The important bit of this interesting post is the seven words I have put in bold.
It's potentially a vector for American style politics into here, whatever your view of the content.
5000 are significant numbers of movers and shakers, which is on the scale of a party conference. There have also been "summer schools" running since 2010 alongside Christian Concern for Our Nation, called the Wilberforce Academy, for about 15 years now.
I tend to be sceptical, but again it's not something I have dug into deeply, other than knowing the predecessor movements from the 90s and noughties. I believe in the engagement and process of relation of faith to society, but not in the imo overly exclusive and morally authoritarian point of view that this group exhibits.
Yes. And 5000x£1000 = £5,000,000. Which for someone is a nice little earner. It's a growth industry, not wholly run by poverty embracing altruistic idealism I suspect.
Interesting comment from their 2025 South African event. I didn't know I needed saved.
Throughout the week it was impressed on Southern Africans in attendance to not take the fruits of Christianity for granted. Cultural fruit, no matter how seemingly secure, can be lost if severed from its root. Of this stark reality, the UK is a disturbing example – a nation now fighting for its Christian soul in the areas of end-of-life care, marriage, God-given sexual identity, protection of women-only spaces and a host of others.
Same sex marriage of course also now legal in South Africa and the USA
A fairly uniform theme of culturally conservative Christian groups when they condemn various groups is that they studiously avoid direct dealing with divorce and remarriage, even though Jesus (and Paul) ban this altogether and class it with adultery (even the well known 'Matthew exception' does this). This has to be because the subject risks othering the wrong people - their own family, friends, congregations and sometimes themselves. Which would never do.
The real crisis for Christianity in the US and UK is how many people and politicians have turned away from the central Christian tenet of being nice to refugees.
It's even older that Christianity.
Leviticus 19:33–34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
True, though on a side note God did drown all Pharoah's Egyptian cavalry and charioteers when they chased Moses and the Jews when they were trying to get to the Promised Land having previously sent 12 plagues to Egypt, including killing all Egyptian first born, to ensure they freed the Jews in the first place. So he was not averse to a bit of ethnic nationalism himself, albeit more as the Jewish God before he become one with Jesus
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
Like 50% of the nations in the UK already have.
If current polling becomes the reality of the votes then the next GE will be a shitshow exposing FPTP for what it is. And the clamour for PR might become a lot stronger. Up till now the old system has benefited the usual suspects. After all in 2024 Labour only claimed 34% of the votes cast yet stormed to a super majority. Why would they want to change the system?
So is Xi like one of TSE’s Stepmoms then, or is he likely to remain and if he remains will he have far less power.
🤔
Or he will reexert his power and arrest senior members of the army, as happened with the Turkish coup attempt.
We don't know who will end up on top.
The next 72 hours will be crucial: will Xi attempt to reexert his power, or will he look to compromise with the army. If the first, then either Xi succeeds, or there's going to be a new General Secretary.
I'd reckon the most likely scenario is a compromise, followed by a Xi fightback, followed by the fall of Xi. But that really is just a random guess. I have absolutely no idea.
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
Like 50% of the nations in the UK already have.
If current polling becomes the reality of the votes then the next GE will be a shitshow exposing FPTP for what it is. And the clamour for PR might become a lot stronger. Up till now the old system has benefited the usual suspects. After all in 2024 Labour only claimed 34% of the votes cast yet stormed to a super majority. Why would they want to change the system?
As they now are trailing Reform. Indeed ironically PR would now give Labour and the Tories more extra seats than it would give Reform and the LDs, only the Greens of the main UK parties still would benefit more from PR as they have always done
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
One angle that pb Tories have missed is that the Israeli police announcement has made Keir Starmer look a bit of a cock.
Scooped by DavidL on KS.
Not just missed by PB Tories, Kemi and Sir Ed too.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Xi's policy, though, is that he can get all that without risking a single soldier's life by propping up the Putin regime.
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
What does Taiwan give to Xi? Nothing apart from industries that China can replicate anyway. Maybe 20 years ago it was different but China is now threatening US industrial dominance, especially in the new, without Taiwan. Siberia is built on top of vast mineral wealth and fresh water lakes. And if that is the new pipeline I don't think it matters, and remember it is Russia who built it anyway.
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
Like 50% of the nations in the UK already have.
If current polling becomes the reality of the votes then the next GE will be a shitshow exposing FPTP for what it is. And the clamour for PR might become a lot stronger. Up till now the old system has benefited the usual suspects. After all in 2024 Labour only claimed 34% of the votes cast yet stormed to a super majority. Why would they want to change the system?
The last GE pretty much did that giving Labour a thumping majority on a third of the vote.
As we move to 5 party politics FPTP will become untenable although the Tories and Labour may resist it.
Whether bolstering border security, backing up ICE agents, patrolling city streets, augmenting immigration courts, and now interdicting drugs with lethal force, it is increasingly apparent that this President sees the military as his favorite hammer, and every problem starts to look like a nail. That alone is reason for concern. When that tool can be employed with little to no regard for the law, there is really no telling where this road will take us.
Tories looking good for a hat trick today. Urgent questions in the HoC this afternoon on the China scandal and Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal. The media today are also looking at Labour's reluctance to censure their boy Andrew Windsor over his use of his police protection officers to allegedly smear Virginia Guiffre.
Tories looking good for a hat trick today. Urgent questions in the HoC this afternoon on the China scandal and Maccabi Tel Aviv scandal. The media today are also looking at Labour's reluctance to censure their boy Andrew Windsor.
It is absolutely disgusting that people are suggesting that Sir Keir is, in any way, responsible for the government of the country.
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
Like 50% of the nations in the UK already have.
If current polling becomes the reality of the votes then the next GE will be a shitshow exposing FPTP for what it is. And the clamour for PR might become a lot stronger. Up till now the old system has benefited the usual suspects. After all in 2024 Labour only claimed 34% of the votes cast yet stormed to a super majority. Why would they want to change the system?
The last GE pretty much did that giving Labour a thumping majority on a third of the vote.
As we move to 5 party politics FPTP will become untenable although the Tories and Labour may resist it.
At the moment the biggest winners from FPTP on current polls will be Reform and the SNP, there is self interest even for the Tories and Labour to now back PR
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
Like 50% of the nations in the UK already have.
If current polling becomes the reality of the votes then the next GE will be a shitshow exposing FPTP for what it is. And the clamour for PR might become a lot stronger. Up till now the old system has benefited the usual suspects. After all in 2024 Labour only claimed 34% of the votes cast yet stormed to a super majority. Why would they want to change the system?
Duverger's Law waves from the side-lines. PR is for losers and wimps.
On a side note, the Reform vote in 2024 was uniformly consistent at 16+/-%. The reason they didn't make the breakthrough was the lack of targeting the smaller parties use. Labour just floated on a tide of votes and some 150 constituencies that always vote Labour. Even 30% for Reform if not targeted may not be enough for a breakthrough due to the 272 'incumbents' constituencies. That's Duverger's for you.
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
We need *STV* for local council elections.
It's one of the things the SNP introduced in Scotland that seems to have been unambiguously successful.
Hang on, Professor Curtis (praised be he) tells us they began in 2007. Yet May 2007 is when the SNP took over. It was legislated in the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. I forget who voted for what but I imagine the thing was part ofd the Labour-LD horsetrading as part of their coalition and it must have met their approval, though I don't expect anyone least of all the SNP was complaining except perhaps the Tories.
F1: Ladbrokes has Verstappen at 2.5, favourite for the title. Astonishing given he's 40 odd points off the lead with just five races.
Betfair has Piastri favourite at 2.7, with Norris and Verstappen essentially tied at 3.1(ish) each.
Who was that modest and self effacing chap who recently tipped Verstappen at 12s?
Ha, well, I hope it comes off. I backed Piastri each way at 14 and Verstappen just to win at 4 (admittedly with tiny stakes).
It's still odds against... but not by much.
The odds for the GP were actually astonishingly correct. Verstappen 8-15, Norris 2-1 I think. 20s/50s other manufacturers (Incl Ferrari) were correct. If Leclerc hadn't held up Norris he might have won. Piastri seems to be in a slump tbh
Just what is going on with Piastri ? He was significantly slower than Norris this weekend just gone, up to now they've been fairly level and the difference has been mistakes to seperate them. This wasn't like that, the car is clearly still better than the Ferrari yet Piastri was significantly slower than both Norris and Leclerc.
Piastri seems to be annoyed he lost a place to Norris in the last race and Norris didn’t give it back and McLaren were fine with it.
Norris has definitely upped his racecraft, adding an element of aggression which was previously absent.
Gentlemen don't become F1 champions (Jim Clark excepted).
Honourable mention to Damon Hill as well.
And his Dad and Sir Jackie. Most of the sixties and seventies F1 Champions shared the jeopardy of their chosen career with their fellow drivers.
It was during the eighties and nineties that things changed and Prost, Piquet, Senna and Schumacher would have been quite content to send a fellow competitor into the Armco. Verstappen, and his Dad before him have taken that notion up a notch or two.
Sir Jackie’s a bit of a bellend these days, he keeps on slagging off Sir Lewis Hamilton
Some of his comments towards Sir Lewis come across very badly. At best they could be described as classist, at worst quite racist.
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
Like 50% of the nations in the UK already have.
If current polling becomes the reality of the votes then the next GE will be a shitshow exposing FPTP for what it is. And the clamour for PR might become a lot stronger. Up till now the old system has benefited the usual suspects. After all in 2024 Labour only claimed 34% of the votes cast yet stormed to a super majority. Why would they want to change the system?
Why did Labour support PR for Scotland in 2004 but never for Westminster, one might ask?
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Xi's policy, though, is that he can get all that without risking a single soldier's life by propping up the Putin regime.
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
What does Taiwan give to Xi? Nothing apart from industries that China can replicate anyway. Maybe 20 years ago it was different but China is now threatening US industrial dominance, especially in the new, without Taiwan. Siberia is built on top of vast mineral wealth and fresh water lakes. And if that is the new pipeline I don't think it matters, and remember it is Russia who built it anyway.
Taking Taiwan and other territory claimed by China represents the reversal of the century of humiliations inflicted on China by the Western powers as Imperial China declined and collapsed.
It's fundamental to the self-image of Communist China.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Xi's policy, though, is that he can get all that without risking a single soldier's life by propping up the Putin regime.
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
What does Taiwan give to Xi? Nothing apart from industries that China can replicate anyway. Maybe 20 years ago it was different but China is now threatening US industrial dominance, especially in the new, without Taiwan. Siberia is built on top of vast mineral wealth and fresh water lakes. And if that is the new pipeline I don't think it matters, and remember it is Russia who built it anyway.
Taking Taiwan and other territory claimed by China represents the reversal of the century of humiliations inflicted on China by the Western powers as Imperial China declined and collapsed.
It's fundamental to the self-image of Communist China.
And that differs from Outer Manchuria (aka half of Siberia) how? I'm not saying Beijing does not want Taiwan back in the fold and has rearmed to do it but whereas there used to be other benefits, there are now none, whereas Siberia offers vast mineral wealth as well as reunification with China, and the new realpolitik is that Russia can't defend it so might be persuaded to come to a peaceful arrangement.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
It’s crazy.
There was also this
‘ Companies bidding to build new nuclear in Britain were asked to show how they - *and their supply chain* - would create jobs for “refugees, people who have recently immigrated or are seeking asylum”.’
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
Isn't it the sort of thing where a bidder can simply say, "we at Macho Engineering Corp. are committed to being an inclusive employer and that these standards are adhered to by our suppliers, such as Big Balls Inc. and Manly Metal Bashing Ltd."?
Normal politics. You'd probably find the same sort of thing happening in other councils and other parties over the years.
Frequently, any reader of Private Eye’s Rotten Boroughs over the years will see that. however this forum is obsessed with Reform councillors for some obscure reason. Holding them to a far higher standard than others. 🤷♂️
To me they aren’t ’none of the above’ they’re just the same as the above.
I once suggested to OGH that about one third of local councillors were capable of purely animal functions.
He said I was being generous.
We have both been local councillors.
In my experience the worst councillors generally come from one party state councils.
We need PR for local council elections.
We need *STV* for local council elections.
It's one of the things the SNP introduced in Scotland that seems to have been unambiguously successful.
Hang on, Professor Curtis (praised be he) tells us they began in 2007. Yet May 2007 is when the SNP took over. It was legislated in the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. I forget who voted for what but I imagine the thing was part ofd the Labour-LD horsetrading as part of their coalition and it must have met their approval, though I don't expect anyone least of all the SNP was complaining except perhaps the Tories.
F1: Ladbrokes has Verstappen at 2.5, favourite for the title. Astonishing given he's 40 odd points off the lead with just five races.
Betfair has Piastri favourite at 2.7, with Norris and Verstappen essentially tied at 3.1(ish) each.
Who was that modest and self effacing chap who recently tipped Verstappen at 12s?
Ha, well, I hope it comes off. I backed Piastri each way at 14 and Verstappen just to win at 4 (admittedly with tiny stakes).
It's still odds against... but not by much.
The odds for the GP were actually astonishingly correct. Verstappen 8-15, Norris 2-1 I think. 20s/50s other manufacturers (Incl Ferrari) were correct. If Leclerc hadn't held up Norris he might have won. Piastri seems to be in a slump tbh
Just what is going on with Piastri ? He was significantly slower than Norris this weekend just gone, up to now they've been fairly level and the difference has been mistakes to seperate them. This wasn't like that, the car is clearly still better than the Ferrari yet Piastri was significantly slower than both Norris and Leclerc.
Piastri seems to be annoyed he lost a place to Norris in the last race and Norris didn’t give it back and McLaren were fine with it.
Norris has definitely upped his racecraft, adding an element of aggression which was previously absent.
Gentlemen don't become F1 champions (Jim Clark excepted).
Damon Hill did too.
Hawthorn raced in a bow tie, but I think him and Collins were more playboys than gentlemen.
I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
Yes and no. Plenty of other teams in UEFA have troublesome hooligans, yet the game in Birmingham is the only time I can recall where away fans have been banned.
No-one suggests that they are the good guys. But the issue is anti-semitism.
No, it really isn't. At least, it probably isn't. The issue is the rioting at their last game in Amsterdam where Israeli fans attacked local Muslims and then it all kicked off bigly as local thugs, many antisemitic no doubt, are up for a ruck. Transferring this scenario to Birmingham is what the police are worried about.
And as I posted earlier, I can remember in the dim and distant past, West Ham fans being banned from European games, so this is not new. Liverpool fans were also famously banned after Heysel. And all this is without betting on Israeli police banning Israeli fans unless you think Tel Aviv's Chief Constable is an Iranian mole.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
That said: given the issue was not specifically with the Villa, I cannot understand why there were not measures implemented to bus Macabee fans in from outside Birmingham. This happens all the time when there is the possibility of violent confrontations. That they did not reflects very poorly on the authorities.
Its quite contentious and a lot of people suspect 'reasons' behind the decision. I think it would be in the public interest to share the concerns that the safety board has, where possible. Otherwise there is always going to be bad feeling about this.
I know what concerns the safety board had: a combination of Muslims in Birmingham burning Israeli flags, while the Maccabee fans burned Palestinian ones was only going to end in one way.
Where there was a a complete failure from the authorities was in not asking the question: how we can allow fans to get to the game without a risk of violent conflagurations? Especially given this kind of thing is hardly unknown.
Surely you meet their planes somewhere like Stansted, put the fans in buses straight to the ground, and the same in reverse after the match?
The questions are because it doesn’t appear the authorities even entertained the idea, they just didn’t fancy a clash between two ethnic groups in Birmingham.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Xi's policy, though, is that he can get all that without risking a single soldier's life by propping up the Putin regime.
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
What does Taiwan give to Xi? Nothing apart from industries that China can replicate anyway. Maybe 20 years ago it was different but China is now threatening US industrial dominance, especially in the new, without Taiwan. Siberia is built on top of vast mineral wealth and fresh water lakes. And if that is the new pipeline I don't think it matters, and remember it is Russia who built it anyway.
Taking Taiwan and other territory claimed by China represents the reversal of the century of humiliations inflicted on China by the Western powers as Imperial China declined and collapsed.
It's fundamental to the self-image of Communist China.
And that differs from Outer Manchuria (aka half of Siberia) how? I'm not saying Beijing does not want Taiwan back in the fold and has rearmed to do it but whereas there used to be other benefits, there are now none, whereas Siberia offers vast mineral wealth as well as reunification with China, and the new realpolitik is that Russia can't defend it so might be persuaded to come to a peaceful arrangement.
Well, Taiwan was a more recent loss, so might be felt more keenly. And if Russia is reduced to the position of a nuclear-armed satrapy, then formal annexation might be seen as needlessly risky for little gain, when China is able to dictate terms.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
It’s crazy.
There was also this
‘ Companies bidding to build new nuclear in Britain were asked to show how they - *and their supply chain* - would create jobs for “refugees, people who have recently immigrated or are seeking asylum”.’
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
Isn't it the sort of thing where a bidder can simply say, "we at Macho Engineering Corp. are committed to being an inclusive employer and that these standards are adhered to by our suppliers, such as Big Balls Inc. and Manly Metal Bashing Ltd."?
Is there likely to be an audit?
Like the Diversity ones, you fill out a spreadsheet and send it to an anonymous office somewhere where is filed.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
Isn't it the sort of thing where a bidder can simply say, "we at Macho Engineering Corp. are committed to being an inclusive employer and that these standards are adhered to by our suppliers, such as Big Balls Inc. and Manly Metal Bashing Ltd."?
Is there likely to be an audit?
Yes, you will be audited and will have to show how you meet compliance to the contract. As part of which, based on any audit I’ve been involved in, you’d have to demonstrate how you manage suppliers and their compliance. Some will be desktop audits, some questionnaires and some will be site visits depending on their criticality.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
Isn't it the sort of thing where a bidder can simply say, "we at Macho Engineering Corp. are committed to being an inclusive employer and that these standards are adhered to by our suppliers, such as Big Balls Inc. and Manly Metal Bashing Ltd."?
Is there likely to be an audit?
Yes, you will be audited and will have to show how you meet compliance to the contract. As part of which, based on any audit I’ve been involved in, you’d have to demonstrate how you manage suppliers and their compliance. Some will be desktop audits, some questionnaires and some will be site visits depending on their criticality.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Xi's policy, though, is that he can get all that without risking a single soldier's life by propping up the Putin regime.
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
What does Taiwan give to Xi? Nothing apart from industries that China can replicate anyway. Maybe 20 years ago it was different but China is now threatening US industrial dominance, especially in the new, without Taiwan. Siberia is built on top of vast mineral wealth and fresh water lakes. And if that is the new pipeline I don't think it matters, and remember it is Russia who built it anyway.
Taking Taiwan and other territory claimed by China represents the reversal of the century of humiliations inflicted on China by the Western powers as Imperial China declined and collapsed.
It's fundamental to the self-image of Communist China.
And that differs from Outer Manchuria (aka half of Siberia) how? I'm not saying Beijing does not want Taiwan back in the fold and has rearmed to do it but whereas there used to be other benefits, there are now none, whereas Siberia offers vast mineral wealth as well as reunification with China, and the new realpolitik is that Russia can't defend it so might be persuaded to come to a peaceful arrangement.
Well, Taiwan was a more recent loss, so might be felt more keenly. And if Russia is reduced to the position of a nuclear-armed satrapy, then formal annexation might be seen as needlessly risky for little gain, when China is able to dictate terms.
Taiwan was never more than very briefly part of historic China, though.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
Isn't it the sort of thing where a bidder can simply say, "we at Macho Engineering Corp. are committed to being an inclusive employer and that these standards are adhered to by our suppliers, such as Big Balls Inc. and Manly Metal Bashing Ltd."?
Is there likely to be an audit?
Yes, you will be audited and will have to show how you meet compliance to the contract. As part of which, based on any audit I’ve been involved in, you’d have to demonstrate how you manage suppliers and their compliance. Some will be desktop audits, some questionnaires and some will be site visits depending on their criticality.
Well that sounds like pain in the arse.
A costly pain in the arse as it ties up valuable time and resource.
You also have the joy of sitting in the report out after a site visit and listen to some no mark tell you your business is shit because you didn’t fill out a form when setting up a new supplier, or some other trivial shit.
These people find stuff to justify their existence.
When I was in the car industry some companies would fail you on an audit, but you could still supply while rectifying the issues, and by some happy coincidence they had a company aligned to them, with former employees, who would help you requalify. All for a daily fee.
It would appear that 9 of Xi Jingping's closest advisors and supporters have all been purged from the PLA by Zhang Youxia just before the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP. Or, to put it another way, Xi has lost control of the army. Which may make him kind of vulnerable.
Doesn't Xi have the final say on this sort of thing?
Apparently not, or at least not any more. The CCP structures he controls have allegedly been bypassed. The fact that someone can do that (if it is a fact) and still be breathing would suggest that things are changing.
Xi broke the compact: that leaders would rule for a decade, and then would hand over to a successor.
He's also ruling at a time when the Chinese growth model (even before Trump's tariffs) was spluttering a bit.
And there are also lots of Senior Chinese who are unhappy with Xi's direct confrontation with Taiwan approach. (Before Xi, the policy was smothering Taiwan with love: a reopening of flight routes, etc., with the goal of first Finlandization, and then later assimilation.)
Put those together (plus the fact that people will be wondering if Xi picked the wrong side in the Russia conflict) and there was always going to be rumbling below the surface.
The question is: what can Xi do about it? Can he arrest the army leaders and reassert control?
Or will there be a compromise?
Or is this a prelude to Xi's departure?
Maybe it's people unhappy with Xi's pacifist attitude towards Taiwan. They want to Invade! Right! Now!
Personally, I think it was exceptionally dumb of Xi: if he'd followed the path of his predecessors, Taiwan and the PRC would be in an EEA type arrangement now, and I'm sure -in time- political links would follow, and eventually some kind of confederation/assimilation.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
That hugely underestimates the substantial proportion of the Taiwanese population who aren't willing to be assimilated. And why should they? They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals. Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria. They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Another reason for the conspiracy theory that the real target is not Taiwan but Siberia, or specifically Outer Manchuria that used to be part of China before Russia snatched it. Taiwan is about pride but Siberia would right prior wrongs and deliver a hatful of minerals and fresh water.
Xi's policy, though, is that he can get all that without risking a single soldier's life by propping up the Putin regime.
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
What does Taiwan give to Xi? Nothing apart from industries that China can replicate anyway. Maybe 20 years ago it was different but China is now threatening US industrial dominance, especially in the new, without Taiwan. Siberia is built on top of vast mineral wealth and fresh water lakes. And if that is the new pipeline I don't think it matters, and remember it is Russia who built it anyway.
Taking Taiwan and other territory claimed by China represents the reversal of the century of humiliations inflicted on China by the Western powers as Imperial China declined and collapsed.
It's fundamental to the self-image of Communist China.
And that differs from Outer Manchuria (aka half of Siberia) how? I'm not saying Beijing does not want Taiwan back in the fold and has rearmed to do it but whereas there used to be other benefits, there are now none, whereas Siberia offers vast mineral wealth as well as reunification with China, and the new realpolitik is that Russia can't defend it so might be persuaded to come to a peaceful arrangement.
Well, Taiwan was a more recent loss, so might be felt more keenly. And if Russia is reduced to the position of a nuclear-armed satrapy, then formal annexation might be seen as needlessly risky for little gain, when China is able to dictate terms.
No it wasn't. 1895 ceded to Japan. There weren't been many years before that in which it was de facto ruled by China.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
Isn't it the sort of thing where a bidder can simply say, "we at Macho Engineering Corp. are committed to being an inclusive employer and that these standards are adhered to by our suppliers, such as Big Balls Inc. and Manly Metal Bashing Ltd."?
Is there likely to be an audit?
Yes, you will be audited and will have to show how you meet compliance to the contract. As part of which, based on any audit I’ve been involved in, you’d have to demonstrate how you manage suppliers and their compliance. Some will be desktop audits, some questionnaires and some will be site visits depending on their criticality.
And in the public sector, they take this crap as seriously as the nuclear engineering requirements of the project. You see, they only want to work with Good People.
If that's a legal requirement, the law needs changing. If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
Isn't it the sort of thing where a bidder can simply say, "we at Macho Engineering Corp. are committed to being an inclusive employer and that these standards are adhered to by our suppliers, such as Big Balls Inc. and Manly Metal Bashing Ltd."?
Is there likely to be an audit?
Yes, you will be audited and will have to show how you meet compliance to the contract. As part of which, based on any audit I’ve been involved in, you’d have to demonstrate how you manage suppliers and their compliance. Some will be desktop audits, some questionnaires and some will be site visits depending on their criticality.
And in the public sector, they take this crap as seriously as the nuclear engineering requirements of the project. You see, they only want to work with Good People.
It seems Anthropic are spending more with AWS then they are receiving in revenue and that’s just AWS costs - supposedly their spending on google cloud is the same
It seems Anthropic are spending more with AWS then they are receiving in revenue and that’s just AWS costs - supposedly their spending on google cloud is the same
Martin Van Der Veyer in the Speccie is predicting an AI crash. That's hardly news - everything that goes up must come down at some point, but it's interesting.
Tory MP Alex Burghart: “I find it a bit weird that the BBC put two businesses on who have been negatively impacted (by Brexit) and none who have been positively impacted”
"Pizza Hut UK is to close 68 restaurants and 11 delivery sites with the loss of 1,210 jobs after falling into administration."
If a company can't even strike it rich selling cheap carbs to the masses, it's not damning endightment on the economy as a whole.
Pizza business is one where there are low barriers to entry and there is fierce competition.
Pizza Hut is just the latest brand to suffer from a trend we've seen in many similar consumer markets where the middle falls out of the market as consumers split between upmarket and cheaper competitors. Plus Domino's advertising has been a lot better.
At breakfast I was having an interesting little dig into Mrs James Orr aka Rev Helen Orr, who is a Church of England vicar, and daughter of Simon Barrington-Ward, who was a REALLY interesting Bishop of Coventry about 3 decades ago, and also head of the Church Missionary Society for a decade, and interested in contemplative spirituality. She herself is interested in societal questions such as how girls can grow into women in our current cultural environment. But the trail stopped when I needed to follow it to substack.
Fascinating situational dynamics for someone who is SWMBO to one of JD Vance's key mentors.
Good morning everyone.
Looks like his wife is a C of E vicar in Cambridgeshire. C of E vicars like civil servants (and often CEOs and directors of large companies) are normally discouraged from getting too involved in party politics though there is nothing to stop their spouses doing so
Yes - the last week or two I've been listening to a little Youtubing from a Vicar in Chalfont St Giles called Rev Dan Beasley (about 20k subs - so notable but not substantial), as he does some of reflecting around movements such as ARC, and movements in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. He takes care with the limitations imposed on him by his public role where he has the "cure of souls" of the whole parish.
But he's told his bishop that he will find it very difficult to stay in the CofE if gay marriage comes in. I can't quite catch the precise tenor of his stance (probably "mainstream traditional evangelical still wrestling to find his view"), but the basics are reminiscent of that taken in 1991 by people like David Holloway when Reform was set up. That positioning is clear, but to me seems less self-consciously sharp-elbowed and has his face set less "like flint" than say William Taylor or other "Reformed" people.
His take on attending ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) was interesting, where he contrasted attending in person, with newspapers reporting over the internet. His critique is that "ARC" the movement was promoting "cultural Christianity" rather than "the Gospel itself". "Cultural Christianity" is likely to be code for "the form of the religion, but not the heart thereof" in evangelical language, and is deployed in all sort of ways.
This is his vid - quite long, but it gives a good idea of the tensions vicars in that stream are dealing with, and where they are coming from. There's useful summary in the last few minutes if anyone just to dip in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV98xcd12xM
* For anyone not following, ARC is the Jordan Peterson / Baroness Philippa Stroud movement looking to "Create a Better Story" (ie imo trying to create a new societal culture to follow on from what we have now). I had not realised that ARC 2025 in London had nearly 5000 people attending paying around £1000 each for 3 days just for the conference itself.
I'm going to a PPC meeting tonight in which there will be a lot of pressure (and possibly a decision) to leave the CofE (normal parish churches can't, but we're a rather odd setup and theoretically can).
The choice of Sarah Mullay as Archbishop of Canterbury is remarkably poor - even if you don't care about questions of gay marriage or female leadership (the two big questions over which the CoE, and indeed worldwide Anglicanism is currently ripping itself to shreds) she's the most "process state, managerialist decline" pick imaginable. Could they not have found someone marginally more (small c) charismatic?
That's one issue. I would have said it's also a very surprising pick given Welby was forced out over a major safeguarding breach and the saga of Mulally's mishandling of Martin Sargeant's false allegations still hasn't completely played out.
Sargeant committed fraud from 2009 to 2019 in the diocese of London, for which he was jailed in 2022, Mullally only became Bishop of London in 2018
Yes, and she was the one who blew the whistle and removed him.
It's not about his fraud, though, that's a separate issue. The problem was that he made numerous (entirely false) allegations against various priests in his exit interview which the diocese of London proceeded to handle so badly they caused one priest to kill himself and drove several others out of their parishes.
Edit - she is also very much seen as a creature of Welby and his corporatism, which is to put it mildly a controversial position in itself. However, I suspect the reason she was appointed is that given her age she will not be around for long (maybe only two or three years) which means there will not be time for opponents of female clergy to schism. And then, when another female Archbishop is chosen, any attempts to cause trouble will be met with, 'well, you accepted Mulally.'
It would actually be a clever strategy but for these other problems.
Such allegations would still have needed to have been investigated though even if they ultimately proved to be false.
She also is not Welby, she is much more focused on England and its Parishes, whereas Welby wanted to basically be close to a global Pope of the Anglican Communion.
She is also less evangelical and more liberal Catholic than Welby. She also made clear by nodding her head she disapproved of Welby's final speech in the Lords. After too many male sex scandals in the church a woman was also needed in terms of perception by the public to lead the Church of England.
2/3 of Synod approved female clergy and bishops anyway and even GAFCON and the Church of Nigeria are more concerned about Mullally's authoring LLF than her sex. So the fact she will serve less than 10 years is not a big issue.
Generally conservative evangelicals hate recognition of same sex relationships more than they hate women clergy while conservative Anglo Catholics largely hate female ordination more than they hate any recognition of same sex relationships and most of the latter who were already most anti women priests have crossed the Tiber anyway!
There is absolutely nothing but pure prejudice and bigotry to hate same sex relationships
Not in my name as a quiet Christian who has seen religious bigotry and how it affects lives
I am not opposed to the prayers for same sex couples married or civilly partnered in UK law either, although I would reserve holy matrimony in church for one man and one woman personally
It seems Anthropic are spending more with AWS then they are receiving in revenue and that’s just AWS costs - supposedly their spending on google cloud is the same
Yes it’s totally crazy, and at the moment is all hype and inflated values. They’re investing in each others’ supply chains such as NVidia, all hoping to be the one to make it either to a monopoly or at least to the acquisition stage.
It’s rather like all the home delivery websites that popped up around the pandemic, there’s simply no profitable business model there yet.
It seems Anthropic are spending more with AWS then they are receiving in revenue and that’s just AWS costs - supposedly their spending on google cloud is the same
Yes it’s totally crazy, and at the moment is all hype and inflated values. They’re investing in each others’ supply chains such as NVidia, all hoping to be the one to make it either to a monopoly or at least to the acquisition stage.
It’s rather like all the home delivery websites that popped up around the pandemic, there’s simply no profitable business model there yet.
Someone will end up making a huge amount of money out of it. And a number of other someones will lose a huge amount of money along the way.
It seems Anthropic are spending more with AWS then they are receiving in revenue and that’s just AWS costs - supposedly their spending on google cloud is the same
Martin Van Der Veyer in the Speccie is predicting an AI crash. That's hardly news - everything that goes up must come down at some point, but it's interesting.
He's late to the party. It's a bubble. It's been know to be a bubble for *years* now. It's clear to everyone that gains in absolute performance are slowing down. There are some interesting gains in efficiency.
The real question is what the actual profitable rate is for LLMs is.
At breakfast I was having an interesting little dig into Mrs James Orr aka Rev Helen Orr, who is a Church of England vicar, and daughter of Simon Barrington-Ward, who was a REALLY interesting Bishop of Coventry about 3 decades ago, and also head of the Church Missionary Society for a decade, and interested in contemplative spirituality. She herself is interested in societal questions such as how girls can grow into women in our current cultural environment. But the trail stopped when I needed to follow it to substack.
Fascinating situational dynamics for someone who is SWMBO to one of JD Vance's key mentors.
Good morning everyone.
Looks like his wife is a C of E vicar in Cambridgeshire. C of E vicars like civil servants (and often CEOs and directors of large companies) are normally discouraged from getting too involved in party politics though there is nothing to stop their spouses doing so
Yes - the last week or two I've been listening to a little Youtubing from a Vicar in Chalfont St Giles called Rev Dan Beasley (about 20k subs - so notable but not substantial), as he does some of reflecting around movements such as ARC, and movements in the Church of England and Anglican Communion. He takes care with the limitations imposed on him by his public role where he has the "cure of souls" of the whole parish.
But he's told his bishop that he will find it very difficult to stay in the CofE if gay marriage comes in. I can't quite catch the precise tenor of his stance (probably "mainstream traditional evangelical still wrestling to find his view"), but the basics are reminiscent of that taken in 1991 by people like David Holloway when Reform was set up. That positioning is clear, but to me seems less self-consciously sharp-elbowed and has his face set less "like flint" than say William Taylor or other "Reformed" people.
His take on attending ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) was interesting, where he contrasted attending in person, with newspapers reporting over the internet. His critique is that "ARC" the movement was promoting "cultural Christianity" rather than "the Gospel itself". "Cultural Christianity" is likely to be code for "the form of the religion, but not the heart thereof" in evangelical language, and is deployed in all sort of ways.
This is his vid - quite long, but it gives a good idea of the tensions vicars in that stream are dealing with, and where they are coming from. There's useful summary in the last few minutes if anyone just to dip in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV98xcd12xM
* For anyone not following, ARC is the Jordan Peterson / Baroness Philippa Stroud movement looking to "Create a Better Story" (ie imo trying to create a new societal culture to follow on from what we have now). I had not realised that ARC 2025 in London had nearly 5000 people attending paying around £1000 each for 3 days just for the conference itself.
I'm going to a PPC meeting tonight in which there will be a lot of pressure (and possibly a decision) to leave the CofE (normal parish churches can't, but we're a rather odd setup and theoretically can).
The choice of Sarah Mullay as Archbishop of Canterbury is remarkably poor - even if you don't care about questions of gay marriage or female leadership (the two big questions over which the CoE, and indeed worldwide Anglicanism is currently ripping itself to shreds) she's the most "process state, managerialist decline" pick imaginable. Could they not have found someone marginally more (small c) charismatic?
That's one issue. I would have said it's also a very surprising pick given Welby was forced out over a major safeguarding breach and the saga of Mulally's mishandling of Martin Sargeant's false allegations still hasn't completely played out.
Sargeant committed fraud from 2009 to 2019 in the diocese of London, for which he was jailed in 2022, Mullally only became Bishop of London in 2018
Yes, and she was the one who blew the whistle and removed him.
It's not about his fraud, though, that's a separate issue. The problem was that he made numerous (entirely false) allegations against various priests in his exit interview which the diocese of London proceeded to handle so badly they caused one priest to kill himself and drove several others out of their parishes.
Edit - she is also very much seen as a creature of Welby and his corporatism, which is to put it mildly a controversial position in itself. However, I suspect the reason she was appointed is that given her age she will not be around for long (maybe only two or three years) which means there will not be time for opponents of female clergy to schism. And then, when another female Archbishop is chosen, any attempts to cause trouble will be met with, 'well, you accepted Mulally.'
It would actually be a clever strategy but for these other problems.
Such allegations would still have needed to have been investigated though even if they ultimately proved to be false.
She also is not Welby, she is much more focused on England and its Parishes, whereas Welby wanted to basically be close to a global Pope of the Anglican Communion.
She is also less evangelical and more liberal Catholic than Welby. She also made clear by nodding her head she disapproved of Welby's final speech in the Lords. After too many male sex scandals in the church a woman was also needed in terms of perception by the public to lead the Church of England.
2/3 of Synod approved female clergy and bishops anyway and even GAFCON and the Church of Nigeria are more concerned about Mullally's authoring LLF than her sex. So the fact she will serve less than 10 years is not a big issue.
Generally conservative evangelicals hate recognition of same sex relationships more than they hate women clergy while conservative Anglo Catholics largely hate female ordination more than they hate any recognition of same sex relationships and most of the latter who were already most anti women priests have crossed the Tiber anyway!
There is absolutely nothing but pure prejudice and bigotry to hate same sex relationships
Not in my name as a quiet Christian who has seen religious bigotry and how it affects lives
I am not opposed to the prayers for same sex couples married or civilly partnered in UK law either, although I would reserve holy matrimony in church for one man and one woman personally
Thats good of you - and bigotted
It isn't bigoted to think that the word 'marriage' or 'matrimony' refers properly to a ceremony and relationship between one man and one woman and can be so defined. It is a genuinely contested matter and is about the meaning of words. FWIW most Christian groups (including RC and CoE) do so define it.
It is completely separate from the issue of the moral status of same sex relationships.
Some will say the matter is sorted because parliament has legislated for same sex marriage. Which has some force, but only a similar force to the idea that Rwanda is a safe country because parliament recently so defined it.
Comments
Where there was a a complete failure from the authorities was in not asking the question: how we can allow fans to get to the game without a risk of violent conflagurations? Especially given this kind of thing is hardly unknown.
Now, Taiwan is terrified of China, and is arming fast. It will probably take 30 years to undo the damage to the relationship.
It was - irrespective - a cowardly and lazy response by authorities.
Leviticus 19:33–34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.
The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born.
Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
And why should they?
They aren't ethnically Chinese, let alone Han, so they wouldn't be treated as equals.
Nor has their island been under Chinese control for any significant period since Queen Victoria.
They'll be doing dances in model tourist villages or in gulags
Margaret Thatcher Out For A Meal With Her Cabinet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaesrBeqgk
Scooped by DavidL on KS.
And if I was Chinese Leader, I'd have dumped North Korea as well.
Offer a reunified Korea a treaty guaranteeing the border and protection from aggression by any other party. Plus *give* them a vast pile of money to rebuild the North (and a cheap loan on top). All with one proviso - Korea stays out of international alliances and hosts no foreign troops of any country (including China) on its soil. Korea can arm itself however it likes.
That would eject the Americans from South Korea in a way they couldn't object to and get rid of the loony next door. And guarantee friendship between the united Korea and China for centuries.,
Now, of course (and following the Hong Kong crackdowns), such a thing would be completely impossible. No one believes "one country, two systems" any more.
Proof of concept so to speak.
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
🤔
The risk to him is that Putin falls (which is getting more likely by the day, given yet another hydrocarbon facility appears to have had a smoking related incident ovenight). In which case, Russia may not need (or want) Chinese materiel support.
(It's also worth noting that the Ukrainians are reaching ever further into Russia with their attacks. If the Power of Siberia gas line were to be taken out - or the gas fields that feed it - then it would have very serious consequences for China's economy.)
"Pizza Hut UK is to close 68 restaurants and 11 delivery sites with the loss of 1,210 jobs after falling into administration."
We don't know who will end up on top.
The next 72 hours will be crucial: will Xi attempt to reexert his power, or will he look to compromise with the army. If the first, then either Xi succeeds, or there's going to be a new General Secretary.
I'd reckon the most likely scenario is a compromise, followed by a Xi fightback, followed by the fall of Xi. But that really is just a random guess. I have absolutely no idea.
As we move to 5 party politics FPTP will become untenable although the Tories and Labour may resist it.
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/a-dangerous-precedent-what-happens-when-military-lawyers-go-silent
Prince Andrew went to Pizza Express, which is far more memorable than Pizza Hut.
On a side note, the Reform vote in 2024 was uniformly consistent at 16+/-%. The reason they didn't make the breakthrough was the lack of targeting the smaller parties use. Labour just floated on a tide of votes and some 150 constituencies that always vote Labour. Even 30% for Reform if not targeted may not be enough for a breakthrough due to the 272 'incumbents' constituencies. That's Duverger's for you.
https://electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/the-power-of-preferences-stv-in-scottish-local-elections/#sub-section-3
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/9/notes
Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut
McDonald's, McDonald's
Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOC9d17vASc&t=11s
I do not know if they are still allowed to sing this in schools but they should – it takes a lot to do the actions.
It's fundamental to the self-image of Communist China.
‘ NEW: The Government spent £22m on its Small Modular Reactor competition- and demanded 50% gender diversity across bidders’ supply chains.’
https://x.com/britainremade/status/1980222083809591529?s=61
If that's the civil service doing it off it's own back, ministers need to overrule and provide a bit of common sense education to whoever demanded it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qpz39jpj7o
A few more years, and an artificial eye implant might be able to improve on human vision.
Or give you night vision, etc.
There was also this
‘ Companies bidding to build new nuclear in Britain were asked to show how they - *and their supply chain* - would create jobs for “refugees, people who have recently immigrated or are seeking asylum”.’
https://x.com/sjarichards/status/1980224861411909722?s=61
What would be the cost of just monitoring this ? The cost of compliance would be huge.
A needless burden on the taxpayer.
The HRification of the working environment proceeds apace.
Is there likely to be an audit?
https://webarchive.nrscotland.gov.uk/20220724154146/http://archive2021.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=4522&mode=html#iob_33546
The questions are because it doesn’t appear the authorities even entertained the idea, they just didn’t fancy a clash between two ethnic groups in Birmingham.
You also have the joy of sitting in the report out after a site visit and listen to some no mark tell you your business is shit because you didn’t fill out a form when setting up a new supplier, or some other trivial shit.
These people find stuff to justify their existence.
When I was in the car industry some companies would fail you on an audit, but you could still supply while rectifying the issues, and by some happy coincidence they had a company aligned to them, with former employees, who would help you requalify. All for a daily fee.
NEW THREAD
There weren't been many years before that in which it was de facto ruled by China.
It seems Anthropic are spending more with AWS then they are receiving in revenue and that’s just AWS costs - supposedly their spending on google cloud is the same
Tory MP Alex Burghart: “I find it a bit weird that the BBC put two businesses on who have been negatively impacted (by Brexit) and none who have been positively impacted”
Naomi Smith: “I’m sure they can get a hedge fund on to make a positive case”
https://x.com/Zero_4/status/1980242921640296949
Pizza Hut is just the latest brand to suffer from a trend we've seen in many similar consumer markets where the middle falls out of the market as consumers split between upmarket and cheaper competitors. Plus Domino's advertising has been a lot better.
It’s rather like all the home delivery websites that popped up around the pandemic, there’s simply no profitable business model there yet.
And a number of other someones will lose a huge amount of money along the way.
Just like the early .coms
The real question is what the actual profitable rate is for LLMs is.
It is completely separate from the issue of the moral status of same sex relationships.
Some will say the matter is sorted because parliament has legislated for same sex marriage. Which has some force, but only a similar force to the idea that Rwanda is a safe country because parliament recently so defined it.