A significant explosion and subsequent secondary detonations occurred at the facility, situated approximately 70 km northeast of Moscow. This arsenal, spanning roughly 3.5 square kilometers (around 865 acres), was recognized as one of Russia's most substantial ammunition storage sites, with estimated capacities ranging from 100,000 to 264,000 tons, although actual stored quantities fluctuated. https://x.com/Osinteurope/status/2023229842980831495
That has been identified as an old event, from last April
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
I see this as very much a Tory-caused problem. I can understand the fact that Blair gets criticism for his policy, but I don’t think it was done in any way that contradicted any democratic mandate he had - I may be wrong.
The Tories repeatedly, incessantly, unequivocally continued to repeat their pledge that they’d reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, or at least significantly reduce it. That was the basis on which they sought and obtained their mandates, and they consistently failed on that pledge - in Boris’ case, egregiously so, without any great attempt to level with the public or speak frankly on the topic.
The problem was the refusal by the traditional parties to recognise that if you want an increasing population, you need to actually spend money and do some things. Things that may be politically unpopular.
We are just seeing the political movement to Build, Build, Build getting underway, for example.
But not to build, build, build schools, hospitals, dentists, roads without potholes. It is just going to squeeze local services way more. The stuff that impacts on local services that is already pissing off the voters.
We don't have the money to upgrade these services. So voters are going to continue to get pissed off.
Item - One real thing that leads NIMBYism is the squeeze on services.
Item - the Victorian and Edwardian approach was to turn a village into a suburb. The new roads were laid out, but critically, infrastructure went in first. So the locals got schools, doctors surgeries, railway stations etc, before the new houses were built.
Which is how Holland and most of Europe do it - local authority buys farmland at farmland (ish) price, adds in the infrastructure and sells the land with planning permission to the builder
It’s an area where multiple governments have completely and utterly dropped the ball
Note that the big Duchy of Cornwall projects tend towards this style (build the facilities) - though they don’t cover all the infrastructure.
The apparently successful launch Rupert Spode's party is new news. He might not win many seats himself, but siphoning off a slice of Farage's vote hurts Reform a lot.
That Starmer probably won't be on the ballot next time shouldn't be news, but apparently is. On such confusions profits and losses are made.
Yes, I would guess that this is a(n over)reaction to Restore Britain launching. Lowe is, for inexplicable reasons, popular with the online brigade. (Maybe because Musk promotes him?) I don't think he has the rizz (as the kids say) to make much impact on the broader public, but if Tommy Robinson rows in behind him, maybe they can represent a serious threat to Reform's right flank.
Farage/Reform is the leading brand. Advance/Restore are unknown to the general public, outside a handful of constituencies.
Tommy is also a brand.
Although he's recently fled the country because, he says, he's been targetted by ISIS, and you can donate some money to help him protect his family. (I happened to be talking to an expert on ISIS at the weekend. They said, no, ISIS are definitely not targetting Tommy Robinson.)
Tommy Robinson is, in fact, being targeted by ISIS
"The Bedfordshire Police officer can be heard informing Robinson during the conversation: "So we have received intelligence that an Isis publication has stated... are encouraging others to commit violence against yourself."
"The constabulary, responsible for policing Robinson's native Luton, verified the telephone exchange was genuine and took place on Thursday, reports the Mirror.
"During the recording, Robinson enquired whether he might obtain a copy of the material, but was advised it is probably classified as proscribed content, which UK residents are prohibited from holding under counter- terrorism legislation. During the call, the officer proceeds to inform Robinson that he lacks authorisation to carry weapons or "take pre-emptive action" against others."
Dunno, maybe you, @bondegezou are the sort of ultra-brave type that would shrug off a call by ISIS for its followers to harm or kill you, but I somehow suspect you are not "the ultra-brave type", indeed I imagine you are the absolute opposite, a delta-gamma cuck who would scuttle away if you were slightly menaced by the Salvation Army
The world would be a better place if ISIS successfully attacked Tommy Robinson.
That's you openly wishing death on someone; indeed that's you openly wishing for a successfully murderous attack by IslamoNazis on a British citizen
Do you thank benefits the forum? Or your soul?
Personally I'd rather see the bastard rot in a hell hole jail somewhere for the rest of his life.
If UK prisons are too soft may be we could swop him for someone in a hell hole despot County, or Hong Kong may be - let the Chinese have him.
He’s currently awaiting trial in October on charges of harassment causing fear of violence against two journalists, so depending on how that case goes, he could be back in jail for the… I think sixth time.
Swop him for Jimmy Liu
Massive PR win for Starmer
Ask the Chinese to keep him for 10 years minimum
Jimmy Lai, no?
Lai yes
Sorry I know few people called Liu, must have auto spelt
A significant explosion and subsequent secondary detonations occurred at the facility, situated approximately 70 km northeast of Moscow. This arsenal, spanning roughly 3.5 square kilometers (around 865 acres), was recognized as one of Russia's most substantial ammunition storage sites, with estimated capacities ranging from 100,000 to 264,000 tons, although actual stored quantities fluctuated. https://x.com/Osinteurope/status/2023229842980831495
That has been identified as an old event, from last April
Yep, apologies. Should have noted the unseasonal appaearance.
It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like Starmer is turning a corner and being a bit more combative and a bit less consensus based.
See this BBC story on social media "We will do battle with AI chatbots as we did with Grok"... "if that means a fight with big social media companies, then bring it on "
Whereas six months ago I think it would have been more like "we are looking at all the options carefully, we don't rule out taking action."
I've just noticed the glaring grammatical error in the title of the thread.
Should be "Labour is, just, the favourite..."
“users of British English generally accept that collective nouns take either singular or plural verb forms depending on context and the metonymic shift that it implies”
We love our gossip and rumours. Rumour has it on X that one of the Tory to Reform leapers is already briefing Farage needs to step down for someone with cabinet experience (cough Jenrick cough)
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
An interesting bits from both Speccy and New Statesman journalists have said that staffers have briefed them that Starmer is the most incurious PM they have ever known. He sits in his office, waits for people to go to him, he basically says yes to everything presented to him. He never goes out and finds out what is actually happening, what is the progress on this and that idea, what people are thinking about how things are going. They said even Boris did that, Sunak was bloody annoying middle manager going come on team, lets go team, then got annoyed at the lack of progress. So Starmer gets a shock when he is like "we stopped the small boats as we passed law", what do you mean the numbers are up.....As far as he is concerned he signed a bit of paper, that is problem solved and doesn't worry about it anymore until it blows up.
An interesting bits from both Speccy and New Statesman journalists have said that staffer have briefed them that Starmer is the most incurious PM they have ever known. He sits in his office, wait for people to go to him, he basically says Yes to everything presented to him. He never goes out and finds out what is actually happening, what is the progress on this and that idea. They said even Boris did that. So Starmer gets a shock when he is like "we stopped the small boats as we passed law", what do you mean the numbers are up.....
The advantage to that management style is that you don't accidentally learn things. Things you really, really don't want to know.
An interesting bits from both Speccy and New Statesman journalists have said that staffer have briefed them that Starmer is the most incurious PM they have ever known. He sits in his office, wait for people to go to him, he basically says Yes to everything presented to him. He never goes out and finds out what is actually happening, what is the progress on this and that idea. They said even Boris did that. So Starmer gets a shock when he is like "we stopped the small boats as we passed law", what do you mean the numbers are up.....
The advantage to that management style is that you don't accidentally learn things. Things you really, really don't want to know.
Its like he wanted in the public sector all his career....
I think one tragedy here are the ideologies that are being presented as solutions, around ultra-traditionalist views, "masculinity", "manliness", "warrior ethos" and so on - a public example being Pete Hegseth. I've been having a look a bit this week at some of the ideas behind his Christian Nationalism, and some of the stuff about women is beyond frightening. That is a recipe for encouraging violence.
Before long we will be seeing a rhetoric that women have a duty to provide sex to men, building on the current "more babies" demands, and as a component of anti-feminism.
Here's one example (Youtuber Richard the Fourth" of someone linking in the new female Archbishop as proof of the continuing degradation of modern society, for "liberal modernist consensus". He reaches for "Traditionalism" and "Hierarchy as we saw in our martial traditions", based around ideas such as those of Robert Bly, and also various others from 1st half 20C and before. Ideologically, for me this is running away from the issue based on a tissue of nonsense, rather than addressing the question.
One problem with the Archbishop stuff: there is a female Apostle (the model for Bishops in RC, Anglican, Orthodox etc) in the New Testament in good standing, which means the whole idea of "NEVER women in authority in the church" is simply baloney.
Go on - who do you reckon was a female apostle? I thought conventional reckoning was there were a total of 13 - the 12 disciples less Judas, plus Judas's replacement, and Paul. I'm not aware of any others claiming to be Apostles in the NY?
The model for Elders/Overseers/Bishops is more like Timothy (who nowhere claims to be an apostle), and Paul's instructions in his letters to Timothy are very clear that women should not be church leaders. 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (ESV translation).
There's a whole load of revisionist rubbish talked about this (my local CofE bishop spouts pompous nonsense about how "her hermeneutic is different to other people's") but it's quite hard to get away from the actual words written in the Bible. You can of course not belive it or disagree with it, or think that Paul was a raging misogynist and his letters shouldn't count - those are logically coherent positions. But trying to claim the Bible is OK with women in senior church leadership is a nonsense position as the text explicitly and clearly says the opposite in a number of places.
(Aside - I would be a bit less blunt in my language (not "baloney") - but by then edit had timed out.)
The text that surprised me - partly because I've been interested in the religion-politics-culture junction, including around feminism following debates at University, for decades and had not met it, was Romans 16:17, and Paul's mention of Junia (female name) as "prominent amongst the Apostles". The overwhelming evidence of the text under Biblical scholarship (of whatever viewpoint - Evangelical, RC or something else), context and original language context etc is that it is a female name.
So that is one of Paul's references to "Apostles" in his greetings and conversations in his pastoral letters. That (and the "Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers..." ordering from Ephesians 4:11-13 (as used by some Evangelical, Pentecostal and Restorationist churches for their leadership structure) shows Apostles beyond the 12 (or 13 if we subtract Judas, add his replacement, and add Paul) for your 13. In RC, Anglican, Orthodox there is the threefold order of Bishop, Priests, Deacons.
Reading up, I'm fascinated how it has been handled over the years. If we take a classical Reformed (say Westminster Confession) Evangelical interpretations of the Bible, it is "infallible" and "inerrant" and "verbally inspired", and so should define doctrine for those people. But sometimes mistranslations are imposed on the Bible for contemporary cultural reasons.
In the case of "Junia" it was changed to "Junias" (male version) in a large majority of Bibles published between ~1820 and ~1970, due to changes inserted into Victorian standard the Greek texts (eg Westcott-Hort). Prominent scholars (eg JB Lightfoot) went so far as to say 'it must be the male version because women cannot be apostles.' Newer translation have reverted to the original text. But fascinatingly when the New International Version (standard Bible for Evangelicals) came out in 1980 the UK one said "Junia" (female) but the USA one said "Junias" (male); the USA was only corrected in the 2011 edition.
I think one tragedy here are the ideologies that are being presented as solutions, around ultra-traditionalist views, "masculinity", "manliness", "warrior ethos" and so on - a public example being Pete Hegseth. I've been having a look a bit this week at some of the ideas behind his Christian Nationalism, and some of the stuff about women is beyond frightening. That is a recipe for encouraging violence.
Before long we will be seeing a rhetoric that women have a duty to provide sex to men, building on the current "more babies" demands, and as a component of anti-feminism.
Here's one example (Youtuber Richard the Fourth" of someone linking in the new female Archbishop as proof of the continuing degradation of modern society, for "liberal modernist consensus". He reaches for "Traditionalism" and "Hierarchy as we saw in our martial traditions", based around ideas such as those of Robert Bly, and also various others from 1st half 20C and before. Ideologically, for me this is running away from the issue based on a tissue of nonsense, rather than addressing the question.
One problem with the Archbishop stuff: there is a female Apostle (the model for Bishops in RC, Anglican, Orthodox etc) in the New Testament in good standing, which means the whole idea of "NEVER women in authority in the church" is simply baloney.
Go on - who do you reckon was a female apostle? I thought conventional reckoning was there were a total of 13 - the 12 disciples less Judas, plus Judas's replacement, and Paul. I'm not aware of any others claiming to be Apostles in the NY?
The model for Elders/Overseers/Bishops is more like Timothy (who nowhere claims to be an apostle), and Paul's instructions in his letters to Timothy are very clear that women should not be church leaders. 1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." (ESV translation).
There's a whole load of revisionist rubbish talked about this (my local CofE bishop spouts pompous nonsense about how "her hermeneutic is different to other people's") but it's quite hard to get away from the actual words written in the Bible. You can of course not belive it or disagree with it, or think that Paul was a raging misogynist and his letters shouldn't count - those are logically coherent positions. But trying to claim the Bible is OK with women in senior church leadership is a nonsense position as the text explicitly and clearly says the opposite in a number of places.
(Aside - I would be a bit less blunt in my language (not "baloney") - but by then edit had timed out.)
The text that surprised me - partly because I've been interested in the religion-politics-culture junction, including around feminism following debates at University, for decades and had not met it, was Romans 16:17, and Paul's mention of Junia (female name) as "prominent amongst the Apostles". The overwhelming evidence of the text under Biblical scholarship (of whatever viewpoint - Evangelical, RC or something else), context and original language context etc is that it is a female name.
So that is one of Paul's references to "Apostles" in his greetings and conversations in his pastoral letters. That (and the "Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers..." ordering from Ephesians 4:11-13 (as used by some Evangelical, Pentecostal and Restorationist churches for their leadership structure) shows Apostles beyond the 12 (or 13 if we subtract Judas, add his replacement, and add Paul) for your 13. In RC, Anglican, Orthodox there is the threefold order of Bishop, Priests, Deacons.
Reading up, I'm fascinated how it has been handled over the years. If we take a classical Reformed (say Westminster Confession) Evangelical interpretations of the Bible, it is "infallible" and "inerrant" and "verbally inspired", and so should define doctrine for those people. But sometimes mistranslations are imposed on the Bible for contemporary cultural reasons.
In the case of "Junia" it was changed to "Junias" (male version) in a large majority of Bibles published between ~1820 and ~1970, due to changes inserted into Victorian standard the Greek texts (eg Westcott-Hort). Prominent scholars (eg JB Lightfoot) went so far as to say 'it must be the male version because women cannot be apostles.' Newer translation have reverted to the original text. But fascinatingly when the New International Version (standard Bible for Evangelicals) came out in 1980 the UK one said "Junia" (female) but the USA one said "Junias" (male); the USA was only corrected in the 2011 edition.
2/2 Even complementarians overwhelmingly accept the translation now, and poke around for other reasons why she was in some way a different sort of apostle.
Junia the Apostle was female in early classical Bible texts, and tended to be made male from when the Church became tied in to the state.
My position has always been that if church organisation was a primary matter, it would be in the Catholic Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian) - but it isn't so I am fairly relaxed as I think the whole thing is secondary. I am FAR more interested in values from a particular time or culture being imposed on the Bible that are not there already; that is backwards, and imo is the actual "revisionist rubbish". And that is why we can never sit back and just accept wat is presented to us.
(And this morning I've learnt one of the most delightful Bishop's names I have ever heard: Rt Rev Lumsden Barkway, Bishop of Bedford in the 1930s, translated to St Andrews in Scotland in 1939.)
An interesting bits from both Speccy and New Statesman journalists have said that staffer have briefed them that Starmer is the most incurious PM they have ever known. He sits in his office, wait for people to go to him, he basically says Yes to everything presented to him. He never goes out and finds out what is actually happening, what is the progress on this and that idea. They said even Boris did that. So Starmer gets a shock when he is like "we stopped the small boats as we passed law", what do you mean the numbers are up.....
The advantage to that management style is that you don't accidentally learn things. Things you really, really don't want to know.
Which works wonders if all you are is in charge of a department - not much use when you are in charge of the country.
No one we are in the mess we are in - they entered Government without a plan or interest in how to improve things
Excl: The email exchange between Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson — asking about his links to Epstein — is one of the documents that police have asked the government not to publish
It means one of Keir Starmer’s key pieces of evidence could be in limbo for weeks or months
Not a surprise.
You cannot interfere with Police, CPS Legal framework for political gain under any circumstances.
Woe betide any opportunist opposition leader or MP who tries to do so or subvert justice.
I do think though that without going in to specifics that The Metropolitan Police and CPS should make occasional updates on progress independently of political interference.
This is common practise, not new and been seen many times in the past.
The fools who demanded a police investigation are now fretting because blocking the release of data protects the government.
It is a bit like complaining the Cabinet Secretary is sacked, shortly after you've passed the weighing of data from him to the intelligence committee.
It’s £8000 or so each which is equally way more than the phone was worth
Surely they get them back after a search, and the SIM cards are very useful information in trying to determine from where these people might have originated.
Perfectly legitimate border searches in an awful lot of countries around the world, especially from someone claiming asylum where actual evidence to support (or otherwise) their claim is gold dust.
An interesting bits from both Speccy and New Statesman journalists have said that staffer have briefed them that Starmer is the most incurious PM they have ever known. He sits in his office, wait for people to go to him, he basically says Yes to everything presented to him. He never goes out and finds out what is actually happening, what is the progress on this and that idea. They said even Boris did that. So Starmer gets a shock when he is like "we stopped the small boats as we passed law", what do you mean the numbers are up.....
The advantage to that management style is that you don't accidentally learn things. Things you really, really don't want to know.
Which works wonders if all you are is in charge of a department - not much use when you are in charge of the country.
No one we are in the mess we are in - they entered Government without a plan or interest in how to improve things
No, it works wonders if you are only interested in plausible deniability, for your own career.
To run anything at all well, including a department, requires an entirely different attitude.
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
I've just noticed the glaring grammatical error in the title of the thread.
Should be "Labour is, just, the favourite..."
“users of British English generally accept that collective nouns take either singular or plural verb forms depending on context and the metonymic shift that it implies”
I was out convassing this weekend, and met a few stand-out constituents:
1) The 90-year old bloke who referred to Farage as "my mate", was convinced that the Lib Dems were in favour of unilateral disarmament and that Ed Davey was personally and fully responsible for the Horizon scandal. He then went on to give us a full list of the medications that he was on. Former Tory, now definite Reform.
2) The neighbour of the aforementioned gent, an English lady of South Asian heritage, who was scared of him and his family and felt extremely intimidated by the flag wavers. She very worried about her Muslim parents and had warned them not to venture into the flag festooned areas. She felt that the UK was rapidly going backwards with regard to tolerance and wished that she was in a position to emigrate to Canada or Australia. Voted Lib Dem last time, probably this time too.
3) The initally belligerant 50-something bloke who was fed up with both Labour and the Conservatives (no accountability!) and intended to vote Reform. After a bit of a chat, though, he calmed down and did seem to consider that the Lib Dems might also be a possible protest vote, and actually requested a leaflet from us. Former Tory, this time probable Reform but possibly Lib Dem.
As expected, most are utterly pissed off with Labour, especially because of the bin strike. Our main job seems to be to remind people that Reform are not the only protest vote and, indeed, already don't have a stellar track record themselves when it comes to running councils.
How bleak to live in fear of your neighbour. There are some really vile people out there. I'm grateful to live in the kind of place where neighbours look out for each other.
Lots of people are scared of antisocial neighbours for reasons other than racism – noise; drugs; parking spaces.
It’s £8000 or so each which is equally way more than the phone was worth
Surely they get them back after a search, and the SIM cards are very useful information in trying to determine from where these people might have originated.
Perfectly legitimate border searches in an awful lot of countries around the world, especially from someone claiming asylum where actual evidence to support (or otherwise) their claim is gold dust.
Presumably they didn't get them back, which is why they went to court. (In 2022. This being an old story.)
We love our gossip and rumours. Rumour has it on X that one of the Tory to Reform leapers is already briefing Farage needs to step down for someone with cabinet experience (cough Jenrick cough)
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
An interesting bits from both Speccy and New Statesman journalists have said that staffer have briefed them that Starmer is the most incurious PM they have ever known. He sits in his office, wait for people to go to him, he basically says Yes to everything presented to him. He never goes out and finds out what is actually happening, what is the progress on this and that idea. They said even Boris did that. So Starmer gets a shock when he is like "we stopped the small boats as we passed law", what do you mean the numbers are up.....
The advantage to that management style is that you don't accidentally learn things. Things you really, really don't want to know.
Which works wonders if all you are is in charge of a department - not much use when you are in charge of the country.
No one we are in the mess we are in - they entered Government without a plan or interest in how to improve things
No, it works wonders if you are only interested in plausible deniability, for your own career.
To run anything at all well, including a department, requires an entirely different attitude.
Consider the pyramid of management in the Post Office. Employed at huge salaries, top executives etc. After multiple years in post, they knew nothing of what was happening, apparently. And did not consider it strange that they knew nothing.
I've just noticed the glaring grammatical error in the title of the thread.
Should be "Labour is, just, the favourite..."
“users of British English generally accept that collective nouns take either singular or plural verb forms depending on context and the metonymic shift that it implies”
Labour is not a collective noun. It is a single entity - the Labour Party.
The Conservative Party is...
The Conservatives are...
That may be how you speak. It's not how others speak. "The Labour Party" or "Labour" or "The Conservative Party" can take a plural. I search for the exact phrase "the conservative party are" in the Times digital archive and found 504 hits, going back to 1837.
OT sitting in my GP's waiting room this morning, I could see (confidentiality is a nice-to-have) a 50-ish Black chap trying to register his four children as new patients and being sent away because it is all online now. It was clear he had no idea what was going on.
I see my nephew (by marriage) had a top 10 finish in the slalom. He won't be pleased but there's always next time. Their daughter who is not quite 3 is on skis already. Prefers playing in the snow rather than getting to the finish line but I'm sure they'll work on that.
I've just noticed the glaring grammatical error in the title of the thread.
Should be "Labour is, just, the favourite..."
“users of British English generally accept that collective nouns take either singular or plural verb forms depending on context and the metonymic shift that it implies”
Labour is not a collective noun. It is a single entity - the Labour Party.
The Conservative Party is...
The Conservatives are...
That may be how you speak. It's not how others speak. "The Labour Party" or "Labour" or "The Conservative Party" can take a plural. I search for the exact phrase "the conservative party are" in the Times digital archive and found 504 hits, going back to 1837.
Yes, it's called notional agreement, as I just learned after a bit of Googling.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
I've just noticed the glaring grammatical error in the title of the thread.
Should be "Labour is, just, the favourite..."
“users of British English generally accept that collective nouns take either singular or plural verb forms depending on context and the metonymic shift that it implies”
Labour is not a collective noun. It is a single entity - the Labour Party.
The Conservative Party is...
The Conservatives are...
You can use a plural verb with a single entity if you're picking out the individual members of that entity. You wouldn't, for example, say 'The football team is wearing its away strip.'
I was out convassing this weekend, and met a few stand-out constituents:
1) The 90-year old bloke who referred to Farage as "my mate", was convinced that the Lib Dems were in favour of unilateral disarmament and that Ed Davey was personally and fully responsible for the Horizon scandal. He then went on to give us a full list of the medications that he was on. Former Tory, now definite Reform.
2) The neighbour of the aforementioned gent, an English lady of South Asian heritage, who was scared of him and his family and felt extremely intimidated by the flag wavers. She very worried about her Muslim parents and had warned them not to venture into the flag festooned areas. She felt that the UK was rapidly going backwards with regard to tolerance and wished that she was in a position to emigrate to Canada or Australia. Voted Lib Dem last time, probably this time too.
3) The initally belligerant 50-something bloke who was fed up with both Labour and the Conservatives (no accountability!) and intended to vote Reform. After a bit of a chat, though, he calmed down and did seem to consider that the Lib Dems might also be a possible protest vote, and actually requested a leaflet from us. Former Tory, this time probable Reform but possibly Lib Dem.
As expected, most are utterly pissed off with Labour, especially because of the bin strike. Our main job seems to be to remind people that Reform are not the only protest vote and, indeed, already don't have a stellar track record themselves when it comes to running councils.
How bleak to live in fear of your neighbour. There are some really vile people out there. I'm grateful to live in the kind of place where neighbours look out for each other.
Lots of people are scared of antisocial neighbours for reasons other than racism – noise; drugs; parking spaces.
Violent reprisals or damage to your property if you complain being a big one I’d expect.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
Part of the problem was how they approached the story - and how they looted lots of the books for bit and pieces.
You could have made a magnificent period piece starting with the concert in Malta. building up to the takin of the Cacafuego.
I suppose the subplots with Irish Independence and Stephen's spying would have been hard to get to the audience - but that's what good script writer are for. With Stephen - start with he has Spanish family, land and speaks the language and gradually add in more and more?
I was out convassing this weekend, and met a few stand-out constituents:
1) The 90-year old bloke who referred to Farage as "my mate", was convinced that the Lib Dems were in favour of unilateral disarmament and that Ed Davey was personally and fully responsible for the Horizon scandal. He then went on to give us a full list of the medications that he was on. Former Tory, now definite Reform.
2) The neighbour of the aforementioned gent, an English lady of South Asian heritage, who was scared of him and his family and felt extremely intimidated by the flag wavers. She very worried about her Muslim parents and had warned them not to venture into the flag festooned areas. She felt that the UK was rapidly going backwards with regard to tolerance and wished that she was in a position to emigrate to Canada or Australia. Voted Lib Dem last time, probably this time too.
3) The initally belligerant 50-something bloke who was fed up with both Labour and the Conservatives (no accountability!) and intended to vote Reform. After a bit of a chat, though, he calmed down and did seem to consider that the Lib Dems might also be a possible protest vote, and actually requested a leaflet from us. Former Tory, this time probable Reform but possibly Lib Dem.
As expected, most are utterly pissed off with Labour, especially because of the bin strike. Our main job seems to be to remind people that Reform are not the only protest vote and, indeed, already don't have a stellar track record themselves when it comes to running councils.
How bleak to live in fear of your neighbour. There are some really vile people out there. I'm grateful to live in the kind of place where neighbours look out for each other.
Lots of people are scared of antisocial neighbours for reasons other than racism – noise; drugs; parking spaces.
We had a strange neighbour once who wanted to involve themselves in everyone else's business. Regularly in audible arguments with other neighbours. Complained once, during Covid lockdown, that she never saw our kids playing out front of the house. Said that they played in our back garden and she has no reason to be watching my kids. Creepy.
Moving away from her was a pleasant byproduct of moving. Race was not a factor.
I was out convassing this weekend, and met a few stand-out constituents:
1) The 90-year old bloke who referred to Farage as "my mate", was convinced that the Lib Dems were in favour of unilateral disarmament and that Ed Davey was personally and fully responsible for the Horizon scandal. He then went on to give us a full list of the medications that he was on. Former Tory, now definite Reform.
2) The neighbour of the aforementioned gent, an English lady of South Asian heritage, who was scared of him and his family and felt extremely intimidated by the flag wavers. She very worried about her Muslim parents and had warned them not to venture into the flag festooned areas. She felt that the UK was rapidly going backwards with regard to tolerance and wished that she was in a position to emigrate to Canada or Australia. Voted Lib Dem last time, probably this time too.
3) The initally belligerant 50-something bloke who was fed up with both Labour and the Conservatives (no accountability!) and intended to vote Reform. After a bit of a chat, though, he calmed down and did seem to consider that the Lib Dems might also be a possible protest vote, and actually requested a leaflet from us. Former Tory, this time probable Reform but possibly Lib Dem.
As expected, most are utterly pissed off with Labour, especially because of the bin strike. Our main job seems to be to remind people that Reform are not the only protest vote and, indeed, already don't have a stellar track record themselves when it comes to running councils.
How bleak to live in fear of your neighbour. There are some really vile people out there. I'm grateful to live in the kind of place where neighbours look out for each other.
Lots of people are scared of antisocial neighbours for reasons other than racism – noise; drugs; parking spaces.
Violent reprisals or damage to your property if you complain being a big one I’d expect.
Yup - read up on some of the horror stories of decade long persecution of neighbours. Sometimes, just pure bullying for sociopathic reasons.
The apparently successful launch Rupert Spode's party is new news. He might not win many seats himself, but siphoning off a slice of Farage's vote hurts Reform a lot.
That Starmer probably won't be on the ballot next time shouldn't be news, but apparently is. On such confusions profits and losses are made.
Yes, I would guess that this is a(n over)reaction to Restore Britain launching. Lowe is, for inexplicable reasons, popular with the online brigade. (Maybe because Musk promotes him?) I don't think he has the rizz (as the kids say) to make much impact on the broader public, but if Tommy Robinson rows in behind him, maybe they can represent a serious threat to Reform's right flank.
Rupert Lowe is an estimable and noble gent in many ways, as we all can surely agree (for once!), but one of the best things about him is that he shifts the Overton Windpw firmly to the right, Making Reform look what they are: a sensible centrist vote. For ethnocentrist dads
Thus he possibly benefits Farage
What about Musks Moola in this?
Is Musks Moola underwriting Restore? Is it declared anywhere they are receiving Musks money? And will it make a difference in the crowded 3 party Right of Centre battling for same voters to get them over the line in constituencies?
The apparently successful launch Rupert Spode's party is new news. He might not win many seats himself, but siphoning off a slice of Farage's vote hurts Reform a lot.
That Starmer probably won't be on the ballot next time shouldn't be news, but apparently is. On such confusions profits and losses are made.
Yes, I would guess that this is a(n over)reaction to Restore Britain launching. Lowe is, for inexplicable reasons, popular with the online brigade. (Maybe because Musk promotes him?) I don't think he has the rizz (as the kids say) to make much impact on the broader public, but if Tommy Robinson rows in behind him, maybe they can represent a serious threat to Reform's right flank.
Farage/Reform is the leading brand. Advance/Restore are unknown to the general public, outside a handful of constituencies.
Tommy is also a brand.
Although he's recently fled the country because, he says, he's been targetted by ISIS, and you can donate some money to help him protect his family. (I happened to be talking to an expert on ISIS at the weekend. They said, no, ISIS are definitely not targetting Tommy Robinson.)
Tommy Robinson is, in fact, being targeted by ISIS
"The Bedfordshire Police officer can be heard informing Robinson during the conversation: "So we have received intelligence that an Isis publication has stated... are encouraging others to commit violence against yourself."
"The constabulary, responsible for policing Robinson's native Luton, verified the telephone exchange was genuine and took place on Thursday, reports the Mirror.
"During the recording, Robinson enquired whether he might obtain a copy of the material, but was advised it is probably classified as proscribed content, which UK residents are prohibited from holding under counter- terrorism legislation. During the call, the officer proceeds to inform Robinson that he lacks authorisation to carry weapons or "take pre-emptive action" against others."
Dunno, maybe you, @bondegezou are the sort of ultra-brave type that would shrug off a call by ISIS for its followers to harm or kill you, but I somehow suspect you are not "the ultra-brave type", indeed I imagine you are the absolute opposite, a delta-gamma cuck who would scuttle away if you were slightly menaced by the Salvation Army
The world would be a better place if ISIS successfully attacked Tommy Robinson.
That's you openly wishing death on someone; indeed that's you openly wishing for a successfully murderous attack by IslamoNazis on a British citizen
Do you thank benefits the forum? Or your soul?
I openly wish death on truly evil people; Putin, Robinson, Jozef Fritzl.
What's he done to put him in that category?
Well, what he's been found guilty of is...
- assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault with intent to resist arrest, 2004 - using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, and leading a group of football hooligans into a fight, 2010 - use of a false passport, 2012 - mortgage fraud, 2012 - contempt of court, 2017 - libel, 2018, and contempt of court again for repeating the libel, 2024 - stalking a journalist and her partner, 2021
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
Part of the problem was how they approached the story - and how they looted lots of the books for bit and pieces.
You could have made a magnificent period piece starting with the concert in Malta. building up to the takin of the Cacafuego.
I suppose the subplots with Irish Independence and Stephen's spying would have been hard to get to the audience - but that's what good script writer are for. With Stephen - start with he has Spanish family, land and speaks the language and gradually add in more and more?
The concert was in Port Mahon on Minorca, not Malta.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
Part of the problem was how they approached the story - and how they looted lots of the books for bit and pieces.
You could have made a magnificent period piece starting with the concert in Malta. building up to the takin of the Cacafuego.
I suppose the subplots with Irish Independence and Stephen's spying would have been hard to get to the audience - but that's what good script writer are for. With Stephen - start with he has Spanish family, land and speaks the language and gradually add in more and more?
The concert was in Port Mahon on Minorca, not Malta.
The apparently successful launch Rupert Spode's party is new news. He might not win many seats himself, but siphoning off a slice of Farage's vote hurts Reform a lot.
That Starmer probably won't be on the ballot next time shouldn't be news, but apparently is. On such confusions profits and losses are made.
Yes, I would guess that this is a(n over)reaction to Restore Britain launching. Lowe is, for inexplicable reasons, popular with the online brigade. (Maybe because Musk promotes him?) I don't think he has the rizz (as the kids say) to make much impact on the broader public, but if Tommy Robinson rows in behind him, maybe they can represent a serious threat to Reform's right flank.
Rupert Lowe is an estimable and noble gent in many ways, as we all can surely agree (for once!), but one of the best things about him is that he shifts the Overton Windpw firmly to the right, Making Reform look what they are: a sensible centrist vote. For ethnocentrist dads
Thus he possibly benefits Farage
What about Musks Moola in this?
Is Musks Moola underwriting Restore? Is it declared anywhere they are receiving Musks money? And will it make a difference in the crowded 3 party Right of Centre battling for same voters to get them over the line in constituencies?
There's been no announcement of Musk funding Restore Britain, which he can't do directly now they've become a political party. Musk has been supportive of the new party and Lowe more generally on X; unsurprising given they are both racist.
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
Big difference between "immigration was talked about" and the whole public, en masse, single-issue voting on the topic.
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
Big difference between "immigration was talked about" and the whole public, en masse, single-issue voting on the topic.
We don't have a referendum system of government. We have a representative democracy. Voters decide for themselves what issues matter to them and between the choices on the ballot paper. I don't think that undermines the concept of democratic consent.
Excl: The email exchange between Morgan McSweeney and Peter Mandelson — asking about his links to Epstein — is one of the documents that police have asked the government not to publish
It means one of Keir Starmer’s key pieces of evidence could be in limbo for weeks or months
Not a surprise.
You cannot interfere with Police, CPS Legal framework for political gain under any circumstances.
Woe betide any opportunist opposition leader or MP who tries to do so or subvert justice.
I do think though that without going in to specifics that The Metropolitan Police and CPS should make occasional updates on progress independently of political interference.
This is common practise, not new and been seen many times in the past.
The fools who demanded a police investigation are now fretting because blocking the release of data protects the government.
It is a bit like complaining the Cabinet Secretary is sacked, shortly after you've passed the weighing of data from him to the intelligence committee.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
They could get five very good linked seasons out of the 'Circumnavigation' books from Thirteen Gun Salute to The Commodore but it would be insanely expensive. I would play Sir Joseph Blaine for free if that helps.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
A kid with a pc will be able to make the sequel to this great movie in about 18-24 months. Seriously
They're still in copywrite for another 45-ish years. The coming public domain-ing of Bond in less than ten years OTOH, should scare the proverbial out of the industry.
The apparently successful launch Rupert Spode's party is new news. He might not win many seats himself, but siphoning off a slice of Farage's vote hurts Reform a lot.
That Starmer probably won't be on the ballot next time shouldn't be news, but apparently is. On such confusions profits and losses are made.
Yes, I would guess that this is a(n over)reaction to Restore Britain launching. Lowe is, for inexplicable reasons, popular with the online brigade. (Maybe because Musk promotes him?) I don't think he has the rizz (as the kids say) to make much impact on the broader public, but if Tommy Robinson rows in behind him, maybe they can represent a serious threat to Reform's right flank.
Rupert Lowe is an estimable and noble gent in many ways, as we all can surely agree (for once!), but one of the best things about him is that he shifts the Overton Windpw firmly to the right, Making Reform look what they are: a sensible centrist vote. For ethnocentrist dads
Thus he possibly benefits Farage
What about Musks Moola in this?
Is Musks Moola underwriting Restore? Is it declared anywhere they are receiving Musks money? And will it make a difference in the crowded 3 party Right of Centre battling for same voters to get them over the line in constituencies?
There's been no announcement of Musk funding Restore Britain, which he can't do directly now they've become a political party. Musk has been supportive of the new party and Lowe more generally on X; unsurprising given they are both racist.
How do you put a price on a social media algorithm?
Even if X were a right-wing cesspit that nobody sensible would read, the ability to promote certain strands of right-wingery would be important but not really covered by spending limits.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
A kid with a pc will be able to make the sequel to this great movie in about 18-24 months. Seriously
They're still in copywrite for another 45-ish years. The coming public domain-ing of Bond in less than ten years OTOH, should scare the proverbial out of the industry.
... but be welcomed by consumers. Copyright lasts too long already. Let's look forward to some new upstarts having some interesting takes on Bond in less than 10 years!
It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like Starmer is turning a corner and being a bit more combative and a bit less consensus based.
See this BBC story on social media "We will do battle with AI chatbots as we did with Grok"... "if that means a fight with big social media companies, then bring it on "
Whereas six months ago I think it would have been more like "we are looking at all the options carefully, we don't rule out taking action."
No one has clocked the UK take on G20 presidency in 2027.
Starmer has been very impressive on Foreign stage, far more involved on Ukraine than Sunak, best tariff of anyone with Trump, reopen dialogue with China deals with India and on Chagos that Tories failed to close off.
Genuine progress on EU, ease of movement, red tape, business costs easing etc.
His best achievement recognition of the right of Palestine to self determination and 2 state solutions. He could and should have sanctioned Israel more and outed Netanyahu as a war criminal, that may now come now McSweeney and the zionist cabal have been weakened.
He's the most globally respected PM in well over a decade... G20 will show him and Labour at there best, outward looking rather than the insular little Englanderson on the right.
It would be a fitting stage for him to end on and hand over shortly afterwards.
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
Big difference between "immigration was talked about" and the whole public, en masse, single-issue voting on the topic.
We don't have a referendum system of government. We have a representative democracy. Voters decide for themselves what issues matter to them and between the choices on the ballot paper. I don't think that undermines the concept of democratic consent.
It's a failure mode of democracy for the only way to get the policy you want to be to vote for a person or party you don't want.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
Part of the problem was how they approached the story - and how they looted lots of the books for bit and pieces.
You could have made a magnificent period piece starting with the concert in Malta. building up to the takin of the Cacafuego.
I suppose the subplots with Irish Independence and Stephen's spying would have been hard to get to the audience - but that's what good script writer are for. With Stephen - start with he has Spanish family, land and speaks the language and gradually add in more and more?
The concert was in Port Mahon on Minorca, not Malta.
And Maturin was very consciously Catalan rather than Spanish.
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
Big difference between "immigration was talked about" and the whole public, en masse, single-issue voting on the topic.
We don't have a referendum system of government. We have a representative democracy. Voters decide for themselves what issues matter to them and between the choices on the ballot paper. I don't think that undermines the concept of democratic consent.
It's a failure mode of democracy for the only way to get the policy you want to be to vote for a person or party you don't want.
I'm glad you support electoral reform and the use of STV to give voters a true choice between parties and between candidates within a party.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
Part of the problem was how they approached the story - and how they looted lots of the books for bit and pieces.
You could have made a magnificent period piece starting with the concert in Malta. building up to the takin of the Cacafuego.
I suppose the subplots with Irish Independence and Stephen's spying would have been hard to get to the audience - but that's what good script writer are for. With Stephen - start with he has Spanish family, land and speaks the language and gradually add in more and more?
The concert was in Port Mahon on Minorca, not Malta.
And Maturin was very consciously Catalan rather than Spanish.
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
Big difference between "immigration was talked about" and the whole public, en masse, single-issue voting on the topic.
We don't have a referendum system of government. We have a representative democracy. Voters decide for themselves what issues matter to them and between the choices on the ballot paper. I don't think that undermines the concept of democratic consent.
It's a failure mode of democracy for the only way to get the policy you want to be to vote for a person or party you don't want.
I'm glad you support electoral reform and the use of STV to give voters a true choice between parties and between candidates within a party.
Absolutely not and that wouldn't solve the problem. It's a cultural issue caused by the elite consensus becoming detached from common sense.
This ought to be a prestige series for Apple or Amazon.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
Part of the problem was how they approached the story - and how they looted lots of the books for bit and pieces.
You could have made a magnificent period piece starting with the concert in Malta. building up to the takin of the Cacafuego.
I suppose the subplots with Irish Independence and Stephen's spying would have been hard to get to the audience - but that's what good script writer are for. With Stephen - start with he has Spanish family, land and speaks the language and gradually add in more and more?
The concert was in Port Mahon on Minorca, not Malta.
And Maturin was very consciously Catalan rather than Spanish.
That was gently eased into the stories - at first Aubrey thinks he is minor Spanish gentry and the Catalan thing only apparent later.
It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like Starmer is turning a corner and being a bit more combative and a bit less consensus based.
See this BBC story on social media "We will do battle with AI chatbots as we did with Grok"... "if that means a fight with big social media companies, then bring it on "
Whereas six months ago I think it would have been more like "we are looking at all the options carefully, we don't rule out taking action."
No one has clocked the UK take on G20 presidency in 2027.
Starmer has been very impressive on Foreign stage, far more involved on Ukraine than Sunak, best tariff of anyone with Trump, reopen dialogue with China deals with India and on Chagos that Tories failed to close off.
Genuine progress on EU, ease of movement, red tape, business costs easing etc.
His best achievement recognition of the right of Palestine to self determination and 2 state solutions. He could and should have sanctioned Israel more and outed Netanyahu as a war criminal, that may now come now McSweeney and the zionist cabal have been weakened.
He's the most globally respected PM in well over a decade... G20 will show him and Labour at there best, outward looking rather than the insular little Englanderson on the right.
It would be a fitting stage for him to end on and hand over shortly afterwards.
I thought Morgan McSweeney had left government
Starmer's problem is not his tourism but his deep unpopularity here in the UK
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
Big difference between "immigration was talked about" and the whole public, en masse, single-issue voting on the topic.
We don't have a referendum system of government. We have a representative democracy. Voters decide for themselves what issues matter to them and between the choices on the ballot paper. I don't think that undermines the concept of democratic consent.
It's a failure mode of democracy for the only way to get the policy you want to be to vote for a person or party you don't want.
I'm glad you support electoral reform and the use of STV to give voters a true choice between parties and between candidates within a party.
Absolutely not and that wouldn't solve the problem. It's a cultural issue caused by the elite consensus becoming detached from common sense.
So, what's your solution? Swiss-style referendums?
It might be wishful thinking on my part, but I feel like Starmer is turning a corner and being a bit more combative and a bit less consensus based.
See this BBC story on social media "We will do battle with AI chatbots as we did with Grok"... "if that means a fight with big social media companies, then bring it on "
Whereas six months ago I think it would have been more like "we are looking at all the options carefully, we don't rule out taking action."
No one has clocked the UK take on G20 presidency in 2027.
Starmer has been very impressive on Foreign stage, far more involved on Ukraine than Sunak, best tariff of anyone with Trump, reopen dialogue with China deals with India and on Chagos that Tories failed to close off.
Genuine progress on EU, ease of movement, red tape, business costs easing etc.
His best achievement recognition of the right of Palestine to self determination and 2 state solutions. He could and should have sanctioned Israel more and outed Netanyahu as a war criminal, that may now come now McSweeney and the zionist cabal have been weakened.
He's the most globally respected PM in well over a decade... G20 will show him and Labour at there best, outward looking rather than the insular little Englanderson on the right.
It would be a fitting stage for him to end on and hand over shortly afterwards.
I thought Morgan McSweeney had left government
Starmer's problem is not his tourism but his deep unpopularity here in the UK
Rather than a buffoon, a nutcase and an inconsequential banker on the Global Stage we at least have someone that the rest of the world has clear respect for.
The British public never consented to mass migration, but the political elites went ahead with it anyway.
That get says often, but it's not remotely true, is it? Net UK immigration hit six figures in 1998 under Tony Blair's government. The British public voted Blair back into office, twice. Net immigration then hit a new peak in 2014 under David Cameron. He was voted back into office at the next election. If the British public were unhappy about those immigration levels then, they didn't show it at the ballot box.
Immigration then shot up in 2021 under Boris Johnson. He departed No 10 and his successor (skipping over the brief May premiership) responded to public concern about immigration and acted to reduce the numbers. The Tories were voted out and the new Labour government have continued to bring immigration down sharply. So, the political elites have responded now.
Can you please point to where in the 1997, 2001 or 2005 Labour manifestos it said anything about increasing the number of migrants from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands a year?
What did Labour say about immigration in 1997... OK, let's check the manifesto:
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
Big difference between "immigration was talked about" and the whole public, en masse, single-issue voting on the topic.
We don't have a referendum system of government. We have a representative democracy. Voters decide for themselves what issues matter to them and between the choices on the ballot paper. I don't think that undermines the concept of democratic consent.
It's a failure mode of democracy for the only way to get the policy you want to be to vote for a person or party you don't want.
I'm glad you support electoral reform and the use of STV to give voters a true choice between parties and between candidates within a party.
Absolutely not and that wouldn't solve the problem. It's a cultural issue caused by the elite consensus becoming detached from common sense.
So, what's your solution? Swiss-style referendums?
The problem has already been solved to a large extent by social media democratising political discourse. It's just taking a while for the political system to catch up.
Comments
Sorry I know few people called Liu, must have auto spelt
Should have noted the unseasonal appaearance.
Should be "Labour is, just, the favourite..."
"Not the first time they've deployed a poisoned frog."
https://x.com/DachshundColin/status/2023029330457006280
I don't remember it being exactly a scandal-free administration...
Labour scandals
LibDem sandals
I say that whoever he is interviewing, he never let's people speak.
If you ring up his R2 show as I have stand by just to be chopped off mid sentence.
England by 10 runs
FFS
Stewart back on strike, two balls left of this over.
Edit - phew.
Confiscating mobiles and SIM cards was a breach of human rights, High Court judges ruled"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/16/small-boat-migrants-compensation-phones-sim-cards/
Where do I find one of these border guards?
The Telegraph is ridiculous.
Don't bother Douglas, in just under a century England will be falling over the line against Italy
So England and the Windies go on.
Come on Sri Lanka...
It seemed a short boundary but same for each side
See this BBC story on social media
"We will do battle with AI chatbots as we did with Grok"... "if that means a fight with big social media companies, then bring it on "
Whereas six months ago I think it would have been more like "we are looking at all the options carefully, we don't rule out taking action."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg38x13x5yo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_noun
Rumour has it on X that one of the Tory to Reform leapers is already briefing Farage needs to step down for someone with cabinet experience (cough Jenrick cough)
Manenti's figures are objectively better for both batting and bowling.
https://x.com/guidofawkes/status/2023350791017316420
The text that surprised me - partly because I've been interested in the religion-politics-culture junction, including around feminism following debates at University, for decades and had not met it, was Romans 16:17, and Paul's mention of Junia (female name) as "prominent amongst the Apostles". The overwhelming evidence of the text under Biblical scholarship (of whatever viewpoint - Evangelical, RC or something else), context and original language context etc is that it is a female name.
So that is one of Paul's references to "Apostles" in his greetings and conversations in his pastoral letters. That (and the "Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers..." ordering from Ephesians 4:11-13 (as used by some Evangelical, Pentecostal and Restorationist churches for their leadership structure) shows Apostles beyond the 12 (or 13 if we subtract Judas, add his replacement, and add Paul) for your 13. In RC, Anglican, Orthodox there is the threefold order of Bishop, Priests, Deacons.
Reading up, I'm fascinated how it has been handled over the years. If we take a classical Reformed (say Westminster Confession) Evangelical interpretations of the Bible, it is "infallible" and "inerrant" and "verbally inspired", and so should define doctrine for those people. But sometimes mistranslations are imposed on the Bible for contemporary cultural reasons.
In the case of "Junia" it was changed to "Junias" (male version) in a large majority of Bibles published between ~1820 and ~1970, due to changes inserted into Victorian standard the Greek texts (eg Westcott-Hort). Prominent scholars (eg JB Lightfoot) went so far as to say 'it must be the male version because women cannot be apostles.' Newer translation have reverted to the original text. But fascinatingly when the New International Version (standard Bible for Evangelicals) came out in 1980 the UK one said "Junia" (female) but the USA one said "Junias" (male); the USA was only corrected in the 2011 edition.
Even complementarians overwhelmingly accept the translation now, and poke around for other reasons why she was in some way a different sort of apostle.
Junia the Apostle was female in early classical Bible texts, and tended to be made male from when the Church became tied in to the state.
Here is an exhaustive analysis: https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/junia-female-apostle-examination-historical-record/
My position has always been that if church organisation was a primary matter, it would be in the Catholic Creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian) - but it isn't so I am fairly relaxed as I think the whole thing is secondary. I am FAR more interested in values from a particular time or culture being imposed on the Bible that are not there already; that is backwards, and imo is the actual "revisionist rubbish". And that is why we can never sit back and just accept wat is presented to us.
(And this morning I've learnt one of the most delightful Bishop's names I have ever heard: Rt Rev Lumsden Barkway, Bishop of Bedford in the 1930s, translated to St Andrews in Scotland in 1939.)
No one we are in the mess we are in - they entered Government without a plan or interest in how to improve things
It is a bit like complaining the Cabinet Secretary is sacked, shortly after you've passed the weighing of data from him to the intelligence committee.
Perfectly legitimate border searches in an awful lot of countries around the world, especially from someone claiming asylum where actual evidence to support (or otherwise) their claim is gold dust.
(And it's actually about £6k each, which is par for the course.)
Labour have since changed the rules so that they can legally seize phones.
To run anything at all well, including a department, requires an entirely different attitude.
He’s gotten lucky because the stupidity has been received as “decency” and the autism has been misread as “profundity”
Long silences. Delayed responses. Furrowed brows. Blank affect
It all comes across as a deep person pondering wisely but he’s just a thick dork
Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception. All applications, however, should be dealt with speedily and fairly. There are, rightly, criteria for those who want to enter this country to join husband or wife. We will ensure that these are properly enforced. We will, however, reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing 'primary purpose' rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
So, they don't give any specific figure, but their "reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results" do imply some loosening.
However, so what? The point of elections is that you can judge the ruling party on what they've done, irrespective of what they'd say they do. If voters really didn't like the increase in immigration, they could have voted Labour out. They did not. When immigration went up further in 2014, the voters could have reacted to that and kicked Cameron out. They did not. We have a democracy. Immigration was talked about in each election campaign. If voters were unhappy, they could have voted accordingly.
The one time when it looks like the voters may have been unhappy about immigration figures was at the 2024 election when they voted out the Conservatives. So, what did the political elites do in response? They 100% reacted and have absolutely slashed net immigration figures.
This all looks like democracy in action to me.
The Conservative Party is...
The Conservatives are...
Obama clarifies views on aliens after saying 'they're real' on podcast
And everyone knows that life on Mars is now quite likely.
We were promised a whole ocean of sequels drawn from Patrick O’Brian's twenty-book treasury, yet we were left with only this one magnificent voyage.
The disappointment is almost domestic in its sadness: the picture came out just after everyone had stuffed themselves on Pirates of the Caribbean’s rum-soaked capers. And although it was critically adored and pulled in respectable money worldwide, it didn't quite deliver the obscene domestic blockbuster numbers the studios now insist on before they’ll green-light another expensive wooden ship full of extras getting wet and cold for months on end.
So the Surprise sits at anchor in our heads, her powder magazines untouched, while we quietly grieve the French frigates we never chased, the dinners in the great cabin we never attended. We wonder how the Hollywood bean-counters - who never once smelled salt spray or heard a broadside - managed to convince themselves this particular adventure wasn't worth continuing.
Alas, Master and Commander is one of those quiet sorrows that all film buffs will continue to carry like an old wound from a duel they never quite fought.
https://x.com/ithacarising/status/2023054829426442668
https://www.thoughtco.com/notional-agreement-grammar-1691439
A kid with a pc will be able to make the sequel to this great movie in about 18-24 months. Seriously
You could have made a magnificent period piece starting with the concert in Malta. building up to the takin of the Cacafuego.
I suppose the subplots with Irish Independence and Stephen's spying would have been hard to get to the audience - but that's what good script writer are for. With Stephen - start with he has Spanish family, land and speaks the language and gradually add in more and more?
Moving away from her was a pleasant byproduct of moving. Race was not a factor.
Is Musks Moola underwriting Restore? Is it declared anywhere they are receiving Musks money? And will it make a difference in the crowded 3 party Right of Centre battling for same voters to get them over the line in constituencies?
Repent at Leisure
Lesson for
Badenoch
Davey
Flynn
Even if X were a right-wing cesspit that nobody sensible would read, the ability to promote certain strands of right-wingery would be important but not really covered by spending limits.
Well they are back on Government abandons plans to cancel council elections
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/local-elections-ministers-drop-plans-cancel-vc03tqnp3
Starmer has been very impressive on Foreign stage, far more involved on Ukraine than Sunak, best tariff of anyone with Trump, reopen dialogue with China deals with India and on Chagos that Tories failed to close off.
Genuine progress on EU, ease of movement, red tape, business costs easing etc.
His best achievement recognition of the right of Palestine to self determination and 2 state solutions. He could and should have sanctioned Israel more and outed Netanyahu as a war criminal, that may now come now McSweeney and the zionist cabal have been weakened.
He's the most globally respected PM in well over a decade... G20 will show him and Labour at there best, outward looking rather than the insular little Englanderson on the right.
It would be a fitting stage for him to end on and hand over shortly afterwards.
TBF to the umpire, my immediate reaction was 'inside edge.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiCF1QdyxhM
I’m guessing the old dear wasn’t expecting that response !!
https://x.com/deanogorton/status/2023287828587979087?s=61
Starmer's problem is not his tourism but his deep unpopularity here in the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/16/keir-starmer-prime-minister-left-right-centre-polls?CMP=share_btn_url
If you want to beat Australia, don't drop Glenn Maxwell.