I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in early education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
Are you labouring under the misconception that your average UK primary school kid has access to their own laptop or iPad? Or indeed textbooks.
I'd be interested to see some stats on this. Because my daughter's admittedly middle class state primary school sets all homework on laptops; it's just assumed one will be available.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If you want people based on popularity it would be: Einstein, Attenborough, Spielberg, Dench If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
Actually, maybe we're doing it wrong. Maybe we should put people on banknotes we wish to pillory. So, the next set could be Epstein related, and feature Mandelson, the Andrew formerly known as Prince, etc.
In general, we agree on baddies, and -frankly- it's good to remind ourtselves that humans (even British humans) aren't perfect.
Shipman, Savile, Lord Haw Haw, that woman who chucked cats in wheely bins....
We could do a Great British fantasists selection, with Carl Beech and Liz Truss too.
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
No idea other than an added cost to the price
The expensive part about solar these days is installation: the people bolting it to your (existing) roof will be 80% of the cost. If you're putting it on the roof when the house is being buillt, that will reduce the cost dramatically.
Outside the UK -especially in places like Nevada and Arizona- there's a large and growing market for window panes, with integrated solar cells. They act as tinted windows, not letting all the light in, converting some of it to solar. Longer-term I hope they'll show up here too.
British houses are generally too dark. The last thing you want to do is lose sunlight through your windows (with the exception of that one day in summer when the sunlight streaming into his window broils an erstwhile author of pot-boilers in his London flat).
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If you want people based on popularity it would be: Einstein, Attenborough, Spielberg, Dench If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If you want people based on popularity it would be: Einstein, Attenborough, Spielberg, Dench If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If you want people based on popularity it would be: Einstein, Attenborough, Spielberg, Dench If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in earAaly education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
Are you labouring under the misconception that your average UK primary school kid has access to their own laptop or iPad? Or indeed textbooks.
I'd be interested to see some stats on this. Because my daughter's admittedly middle class state primary school sets all homework on laptops; it's just assumed one will be available.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in early education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
Are you labouring under the misconception that your average UK primary school kid has access to their own laptop or iPad? Or indeed textbooks.
I'd be interested to see some stats on this. Because my daughter's admittedly middle class state primary school sets all homework on laptops; it's just assumed one will be available.
I instincitvely think it's a bad idea for education to use computers except occasionally.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
Plenty of Welsh people remember Tonypandy as well.
Out of interest, what is a "new" British person? A baby?
I'd put ancient standing stone circles on the banknotes. Stonehenge (obvs) but also Callanish, the Ring of Brodgar and (my wife's favourite) Scorhill on Dartmoor.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If you want people based on popularity it would be: Einstein, Attenborough, Spielberg, Dench If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Euro coins all have national symbols on the obverse. If Britain joined then you'd find the head of the British monarch taken across the eurozone by British tourists.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If you want people based on popularity it would be: Einstein, Attenborough, Spielberg, Dench If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
No idea other than an added cost to the price
The expensive part about solar these days is installation: the people bolting it to your (existing) roof will be 80% of the cost. If you're putting it on the roof when the house is being buillt, that will reduce the cost dramatically.
Outside the UK -especially in places like Nevada and Arizona- there's a large and growing market for window panes, with integrated solar cells. They act as tinted windows, not letting all the light in, converting some of it to solar. Longer-term I hope they'll show up here too.
British houses are generally too dark. The last thing you want to do is lose sunlight through your windows (with the exception of that one day in summer when the sunlight streaming into his window broils an erstwhile author of pot-boilers in his London flat).
If you're referring to that malign cove @SeanT, I believe he has yet another potboiling pseudonym, that was banded about at the London book fair last week, and is no longer erstwhile
Personally, I can't stand the vapid bilge he writes, but clearly some do
I'd put ancient standing stone circles on the banknotes. Stonehenge (obvs) but also Callanish, the Ring of Brodgar and (my wife's favourite) Scorhill on Dartmoor.
One way to make it more difficult to use cash I guess.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If we must have animals they must be non-generic animals which are only found in the UK or at least mostly in the UK.
I vote for Psylliodes luridipennis, the Lundy Cabbage flea beetle.
This is found only on the isle of Lundy, and what's more, only on the Lundy cabbage, which is itself only found on the isle of Lundy.
It is suitably sized for a fiver.
I quite liked Eabhal's suggestion of Manx Shearwater. I once camped not far from their nesting grounds on Rum and the noise at night is, well, something. These are very much a UK/Ireland species and perhaps a bit fluffier for vote gathering.
Given Martin Coles Harman's disobedience vis-à-vis the Coinage Act, perhaps not:
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
If you want people based on popularity it would be: Einstein, Attenborough, Spielberg, Dench If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
While gassing the Kurds.
FAKE NEWS! He didn't.
Hint: You can't use gas efficiently in mountainous areas.
I'd put ancient standing stone circles on the banknotes. Stonehenge (obvs) but also Callanish, the Ring of Brodgar and (my wife's favourite) Scorhill on Dartmoor.
One way to make it more difficult to use cash I guess.
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
No idea other than an added cost to the price
The expensive part about solar these days is installation: the people bolting it to your (existing) roof will be 80% of the cost. If you're putting it on the roof when the house is being buillt, that will reduce the cost dramatically.
Outside the UK -especially in places like Nevada and Arizona- there's a large and growing market for window panes, with integrated solar cells. They act as tinted windows, not letting all the light in, converting some of it to solar. Longer-term I hope they'll show up here too.
British houses are generally too dark. The last thing you want to do is lose sunlight through your windows (with the exception of that one day in summer when the sunlight streaming into his window broils an erstwhile author of pot-boilers in his London flat).
If you're referring to that malign cove @SeanT, I believe he has yet another potboiling pseudonym, that was banded about at the London book fair last week, and is no longer erstwhile
Personally, I can't stand the vapid bilge he writes, but clearly some do
What is it about people who hide behind a rapidly evolving succession of pseudonyms? I think I've had about five on here so far, and supposedly there are others who have gone through more iterations..
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
Plenty of Welsh people remember Tonypandy as well.
Out of interest, what is a "new" British person? A baby?
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
On train from Edinburgh to Kings Cross just about to stop at Peterborough
I would just say that our train journey from Llandudno to Edinburgh and down the east coast evidenced just how wet everywhere is but also the lack of solar panels even on new build is notable by its scarcity
I installed solar 10 years ago and it has been successful despite paying the cost out of capital, as the return far outweighed the loss of investment interest
Good point about the lack of solar. Why isn't it mandatory?
No idea other than an added cost to the price
The expensive part about solar these days is installation: the people bolting it to your (existing) roof will be 80% of the cost. If you're putting it on the roof when the house is being buillt, that will reduce the cost dramatically.
Outside the UK -especially in places like Nevada and Arizona- there's a large and growing market for window panes, with integrated solar cells. They act as tinted windows, not letting all the light in, converting some of it to solar. Longer-term I hope they'll show up here too.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
I've assumed from the start that Israel launched the attack on Iran because the Geneva talks were going too well, rather than that the negotiations were going badly. An agreement would have lost Netanyahu the excuse he craved. And, of course, Trump was easily persuadable.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
While gassing the Kurds.
FAKE NEWS! He didn't.
Hint: You can't use gas efficiently in mountainous areas.
In addition, he was actually talking about tear gas, not lethal gases. The full quote has him pointing out that tear gas would be more moral than dropping fragmentation (conventional) bombs on them.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
This should be headline news . As we all suspected Israel wanted the talks to fail and panicked when they thought they might reach a deal so decided to quickly bomb Iran .
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
I've assumed from the start that Israel launched the attack on Iran because the Geneva talks were going too well, rather than that the negotiations were going badly. An agreement would have lost Netanyahu the excuse he craved. And, of course, Trump was easily persuadable.
Thsy werent even sat face to face. The talks were a sham whilst they all spent 2 months putting shit in place to fight
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
Looking at that list- did winning make any of them happier in the medium term?
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Since the Euro was introduced prices in the Euro Area have risen by 76% while those in the UK have risen 95%. I think that's a better metric for judging the relative performance of different currencies.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
I've assumed from the start that Israel launched the attack on Iran because the Geneva talks were going too well, rather than that the negotiations were going badly. An agreement would have lost Netanyahu the excuse he craved. And, of course, Trump was easily persuadable.
Or the talks were not going well.
Netanyahu/Trump and Starmer/Powell might have different expectations and definitions of what they define as "progress" or "going well".
And since Starmer has opted out of the conflict it means his, and Powell's, opinion is quite frankly irrelevant.
The only people whose opinions matter are those who are prepared to act.
These days banging on about 'how we won Brexit' is like making a song and dance over how England won the 1986–87 Ashes - a win yes, but one rendered almost completely empty by everything that followed.
I'd put ancient standing stone circles on the banknotes. Stonehenge (obvs) but also Callanish, the Ring of Brodgar and (my wife's favourite) Scorhill on Dartmoor.
Excellent idea, but you'd probably get some religious nutters saying they are "pagan" or Wokefucks saying they are "nativist"
Wildlife really is the lowest common denominator. It's pitiful
Personally I'd quite like musicians, from Tallis to Handel to Freddy Mercury. Who could object? We'd also need a woman, who is also dead - but we have the ideal: Amy
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
Maybe they just want a change? Maybe it will be nice to have a change?
Isn’t the BoE obliged to change the notes every so often to stymy forgers? In any case I note those usually bellowing about listening to the peepul don’t seem to want listen to the vox populi now.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
When it comes to Churchill, the horseshoe effect applies - far right, and far left both loathe him.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
I loathe Farage but he would go down as the most consequential in terms of Brexit .
Yes, I agree
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage 2. Boris 3. Big bad Dom 4. Gove 5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
Looking at that list- did winning make any of them happier in the medium term?
Farage. He's in the history books and he knows it
The rest, you make a fair point. However you could say this about almost any epochal political event, they rarely turn out how you want, even if you will them
How many people ended up pleased by the French Revolution, of those who were crucially involved? Not many at all. Half of them got executed, which doesn't help
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
Maybe they just want a change? Maybe it will be nice to have a change?
Always be suspicious of that sentiment.
Be more suspicious of people who tell you that nothing can ever change.
I'm not telling you nothing should ever change. Just that there should be a compelling reason for change. One of the banes of my life is the clothing industry who keep changing their offer. All I want from clothing is a replacement for the item which has just worn out. But they will keep tinkering.
US National Counterterrorism Centre director resigns over war on Iran The head of the United States’s National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, has resigned over the US-Israel war on Iran.
“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran”, Kent wrote in a letter to Donald Trump posted on X.
“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
I've assumed from the start that Israel launched the attack on Iran because the Geneva talks were going too well, rather than that the negotiations were going badly. An agreement would have lost Netanyahu the excuse he craved. And, of course, Trump was easily persuadable.
Thsy werent even sat face to face. The talks were a sham whilst they all spent 2 months putting shit in place to fight
What is clear from that account, and from others, is that the US wasn't clear about what they might be asking for (just as they have been extremely unclear about their war aims).
Whether the Iranian regime would have been prepared to offer sufficient concessions for a deal to be possible is questionable, but it is beyond argument that they did move significantly on the nuclear issue.
It's a hard one, but if faced to choose between believing the Omani foreign minister and Powell, or Trump and his real estate representatives (Witkoff and Kushner) ...
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Since the Euro was introduced prices in the Euro Area have risen by 76% while those in the UK have risen 95%. I think that's a better metric for judging the relative performance of different currencies.
Not really, that is moot without looking at income changes in that time.
British incomes have risen by ~110% in the time that prices have risen by ~95% Eurostat incomes have risen by ~75% in the time that prices have risen by ~76%
US National Counterterrorism Centre director resigns over war on Iran The head of the United States’s National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, has resigned over the US-Israel war on Iran.
“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran”, Kent wrote in a letter to Donald Trump posted on X.
“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
I wonder if his brother Clark is perhaps able to help.
Well that's t'internet rumour. Six fingers, no teeth, then teeth. One would have thought Mossad AI would be top drawer.
Netanyahu released this video of him at a coffee shop in Jerusalem yesterday.
What was the result - does he genuinely have six fingers?
I do feel sorry for people with any unusual physical characteristics, they're going to have a hell of a time convincing people they're not AI generated!
Happened to a friend of mine whose photo was threatened owing to a combination of long, spindly fingers and a 2000-era potato phone camera.
I'd put ancient standing stone circles on the banknotes. Stonehenge (obvs) but also Callanish, the Ring of Brodgar and (my wife's favourite) Scorhill on Dartmoor.
Excellent idea, but you'd probably get some religious nutters saying they are "pagan" or Wokefucks saying they are "nativist"
Wildlife really is the lowest common denominator. It's pitiful
Personally I'd quite like musicians, from Tallis to Handel to Freddy Mercury. Who could object? We'd also need a woman, who is also dead - but we have the ideal: Amy
Putting a drug addict on cash might be a little on the nose.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
Maybe they just want a change? Maybe it will be nice to have a change?
Isn’t the BoE obliged to change the notes every so often to stymy forgers? In any case I note those usually bellowing about listening to the peepul don’t seem to want listen to the vox populi now.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
I've assumed from the start that Israel launched the attack on Iran because the Geneva talks were going too well, rather than that the negotiations were going badly. An agreement would have lost Netanyahu the excuse he craved. And, of course, Trump was easily persuadable.
Thsy werent even sat face to face. The talks were a sham whilst they all spent 2 months putting shit in place to fight
What is clear from that account, and from others, is that the US wasn't clear about what they might be asking for (just as they have been extremely unclear about their war aims).
Whether the Iranian regime would have been prepared to offer sufficient concessions for a deal to be possible is questionable, but it is beyond argument that they did move significantly on the nuclear issue.
It's a hard one, but if faced to choose between believing the Omani foreign minister and Powell, or Trump and his real estate representatives (Witkoff and Kushner) ...
Only the opinions of the latter matter, since they're the ones prepared to act.
Sorry, but if you opt out of acting, your opinions are rendered moot.
There is no objective measure of good or bad, it is always subjective. What mattered was what the Iranians thought, and what the Israelis/Americans thought, and if they agreed. They did not.
I'd put ancient standing stone circles on the banknotes. Stonehenge (obvs) but also Callanish, the Ring of Brodgar and (my wife's favourite) Scorhill on Dartmoor.
Excellent idea, but you'd probably get some religious nutters saying they are "pagan" or Wokefucks saying they are "nativist"
Wildlife really is the lowest common denominator. It's pitiful
Personally I'd quite like musicians, from Tallis to Handel to Freddy Mercury. Who could object? We'd also need a woman, who is also dead - but we have the ideal: Amy
Putting a drug addict on cash might be a little on the nose.
bondegezou said: "I teach postgrad students statistics by getting them to flip coins... but I have to bring in coins now because most of them don't have any."
Have any of them caught on that flipping coins in the most common way need not be random? Having done this, I can tell you that it is fairly easy to produce the result you want, with a little practice. (The larger the coin and the fewer times it turns over, the easier it is to control the result.)
(A somewhat better way to get random results with a coin is to stand it on edge on a hard surface, and then spin it.
The EU attempting to strongarm Ukraine into allowing Russia to transfer oil through Ukraine in order to finance its war machine is one of the most shameful chapters of this war to date.
Why is it shameful? The EU exists to protect the interests of its members. Hungary is a member now and Ukraine is decades away from being a member.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Since the Euro was introduced prices in the Euro Area have risen by 76% while those in the UK have risen 95%. I think that's a better metric for judging the relative performance of different currencies.
Not really, that is moot without looking at income changes in that time.
British incomes have risen by ~110% in the time that prices have risen by ~95% Eurostat incomes have risen by ~75% in the time that prices have risen by ~76%
The job of the central bank is to protect the value of the currency, not to raise people's incomes.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Since the Euro was introduced prices in the Euro Area have risen by 76% while those in the UK have risen 95%. I think that's a better metric for judging the relative performance of different currencies.
Not really, that is moot without looking at income changes in that time.
British incomes have risen by ~110% in the time that prices have risen by ~95% Eurostat incomes have risen by ~75% in the time that prices have risen by ~76%
The job of the central bank is to protect the value of the currency, not to raise people's incomes.
Except that *some* inflation is actually targeted by central banks. For a variety of reasons.
The EU attempting to strongarm Ukraine into allowing Russia to transfer oil through Ukraine in order to finance its war machine is one of the most shameful chapters of this war to date.
Why is it shameful? The EU exists to protect the interests of its members. Hungary is a member now and Ukraine is decades away from being a member.
UK security adviser attended US-Iran talks and judged deal was within reach
Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war
Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.
Powell thought that progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.
Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, Donald Trump and Israel launched the attack on Iran.
I've assumed from the start that Israel launched the attack on Iran because the Geneva talks were going too well, rather than that the negotiations were going badly. An agreement would have lost Netanyahu the excuse he craved. And, of course, Trump was easily persuadable.
Thsy werent even sat face to face. The talks were a sham whilst they all spent 2 months putting shit in place to fight
What is clear from that account, and from others, is that the US wasn't clear about what they might be asking for (just as they have been extremely unclear about their war aims).
Whether the Iranian regime would have been prepared to offer sufficient concessions for a deal to be possible is questionable, but it is beyond argument that they did move significantly on the nuclear issue.
It's a hard one, but if faced to choose between believing the Omani foreign minister and Powell, or Trump and his real estate representatives (Witkoff and Kushner) ...
Only the opinions of the latter matter, since they're the ones prepared to act.
Sorry, but if you opt out of acting, your opinions are rendered moot.
There is no objective measure of good or bad, it is always subjective. What mattered was what the Iranians thought, and what the Israelis/Americans thought, and if they agreed. They did not.
That's just another way of saying that the negotiations were a sham as far as the Trump administration was concerned, and that Powell was likely correct.
On the topic of bank notes, I've been fascinated around the self-justifying narratives being created out of thin air to justify versions of our society that only ever existed in imagined memories (imo a human habit that we all do to some extent). That's Farage to his fingertips.
Dan Hannan at the weekend was exceptional in creating a past that never existed.
I think that the tendency around eg Hannan and Frost would be more successful if they indulged in a modest degree of self-factchecking.
Lord Hannan won Brexit, and changed the course of British history, making him more consequential and "successful" than 99.925% of British politicians
"Schools in Sweden are returning to more traditional learning methods - such as reading from physical books - after seeing their reading standards drop while ipads and laptops were used.
There is now a focus on using more printed textbooks, handwriting and less screen time in early education. Experts say reading levels are getting better because of this."
Good that something is being done unlike here where every downward blip in education (or health) is written off to Covid so there is no need for a proper look.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Since the Euro was introduced prices in the Euro Area have risen by 76% while those in the UK have risen 95%. I think that's a better metric for judging the relative performance of different currencies.
Not really, that is moot without looking at income changes in that time.
British incomes have risen by ~110% in the time that prices have risen by ~95% Eurostat incomes have risen by ~75% in the time that prices have risen by ~76%
The job of the central bank is to protect the value of the currency, not to raise people's incomes.
Not exactly, central banks rightly do not have a 0% inflation target, and they also quite rightly have multiple objectives.
Price stability is the primary objective of both the BoE and ECB, but both have supporting growth as a secondary objective - and both have price changes at an annualised 2.x% rate, but only one has seen real income growth.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
Various reasons.
Because the idea of "famous historic Brits on banknotes" is not an historic practice, and we should not create fake history that says it is. It started in 1970. Traditional, historic British banknotes are plain.
Because we should not fall for an attempt to limit "historical figures" in the way demanded by some.
Most importantly, because we the people decided we want a change, and there is more to our country than well-known historic figures.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go.
Nonsense on stilts!
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
While gassing the Kurds.
Did Saddam put Churchill on Iraqi banknotes?
Churchill never gassed the Kurds Lloyd George was PM at the time, in any case.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
The "historical figure" phase of Bank of England note began in 1970. Now we are moving to the "fauna" phase of Bank of England notes. There were, I am sure, grumpy old men in the late 1960s grumbling over the proposals to put famous figures on notes as some terribly un-British American or European invention.
As for Churchill, who is the man frequently brought up, he's only been on a note since 2016.
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Since the Euro was introduced prices in the Euro Area have risen by 76% while those in the UK have risen 95%. I think that's a better metric for judging the relative performance of different currencies.
Am I the only PBer in the intersect of the Venn diagram: pro-Brexit and pro-Euro?
I am very rarely a grumpy old man, railing at modernity.
But I'm struggling to understand: why you would want to change famous Brits for generic animals?
Is it because we're unable to agree on historical people we admire any more? If so, how terribly sad.
This is exactly the reason they've gone for animals. Part of their BoE remit was to avoid figures or symbols that might be "divisive" - it's in their instructions. Churchill is deemed a villain by some people - often relatively new British people - so he has to go. Not sure what poor Jane Austen did
As someone given to splenetic rage this actually doesn't particularly irk me. But as part of a larger neutralisation and degradation of Britishness and British identity into meaningless greige ("to be British is to value diversity" - oh do fuck off) then it is genuinely sad
Incidentally this is the reason euro coins and notes are so bland and boring. They decided that 23 countries would never agree on heroes and heroines - Napoleon might be loved in France but, er.... and so forth
So they went for totally generic pictures of bridges and walls and ludicrous nullities like that
Since the Euro was introduced prices in the Euro Area have risen by 76% while those in the UK have risen 95%. I think that's a better metric for judging the relative performance of different currencies.
Should we have had a more monetarist hard money policy?
NEW: Ed Miliband says pubs should serve warm beer to cut high energy costs
Typical GB lies. Milliband actually said turn the coolers off at night. According to the article I looked up, a pilot system last year was saving pubs 1000s.
Meanwhile, in "It'll be all right-wing on the night" news,
We didn't just find his videos - we also found Farage's outtakes, which show when his money-making sideline is interrupted by a text message or phone call, requiring him to re-record the video, he appears quick to anger.
Just trying to get to grips with Reforms announcenent/white elephant this morning - you enter a lottery and if you win Nigel will set fire to whats left of Jenricks credibility in your hearth to reduce your energy bill?
I need a summary of RefUK's position across existing Councils they control or lead.
At that level the potential impact of Rupert Lowe's party, or groupuscules, becomes a factor.
A factor the other is smaller groups, or Right-Independents, potentially providing support. For example as the Cons just did to protect the RefUK Council Leader at Warwickshire in a No Confidence vote.
West Northants Ref Maj 39/76 North Northabts Ref Maj 39/68 Kent Ref Maj 47/71 Notts Ref Maj 41/66 Derbys Ref Maj 42/66 Lancs Ref Maj 53/84 Staff Ref Maj 47/62 Lincs Ref Maj 44/70 Durham Ref Maj 62/98
Leics Ref Min 23/55 Worcs Ref Min 25/57 Warks Ref min 19/57
Doncaster Ref Maj 34/55
Thank-you for that.
To add a key:
Group one is Majorities. Group two is Pluralities. Group 3 is Doncaster, which is the only Metropoltan Unitary.
Local perspective: I think Notts Reform are relatively well placed electorally and stability-wise, despite certain ructions.
I'd put ancient standing stone circles on the banknotes. Stonehenge (obvs) but also Callanish, the Ring of Brodgar and (my wife's favourite) Scorhill on Dartmoor.
Excellent idea, but you'd probably get some religious nutters saying they are "pagan" or Wokefucks saying they are "nativist"
Wildlife really is the lowest common denominator. It's pitiful
Personally I'd quite like musicians, from Tallis to Handel to Freddy Mercury. Who could object? We'd also need a woman, who is also dead - but we have the ideal: Amy
Putting a drug addict on cash might be a little on the nose.
Queen Victoria was a laudanum addict; Edward VII had a special chair made so he could have oral and anal sex with multiple different prostitutes simultaneously
They were on our coins for decades between them, I think we can cope with Amy and her smack habit
Comments
In 1919, he stood up in Parliament, and spoke passionately AGAINST the Amritsar Massacre!
Hmmm...
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage
2. Boris
3. Big bad Dom
4. Gove
5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
If you want Brits based on popularity it would be: Attenborough, Dench, Atkinson, Mercury
If you want dead Brits it would be: Mercury, Liz, Connery, Dahl/Bowie
https://yougov.com/en-gb/ratings/all-time-people
Simples.
Out of interest, what is a "new" British person? A baby?
£5 LadyG
£10 Bryonic
£20 Eadric
Etc
Laters all.
Personally, I can't stand the vapid bilge he writes, but clearly some do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_Lundy
Hint: You can't use gas efficiently in mountainous areas.
Or else make the images 1:1 scale...
Was Tony his brother?
The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center has resigned over US involvement in the Iran War.
https://bsky.app/profile/chadbourn.bsky.social/post/3mhb4bgwbj22x
So much for the importance of the business trip to the US economy. Just because the Chinese won't help on Hormuz.
The Chinese allied to Iran, Russia and North Korea. Which American President would ever want to meet and try to move them away from that cluster?
Maybe they haven't got the memo?
If Trump is losing support from people like this one even with rigging he might still have a bloodbath in the midterms.
Plus, the Dems winning the Senate moved to a 51% chance yesterday.
But Hannan is also in there
In terms of importance I'd say he's in the top ten names of people that made Brexit happen. Indeed, as I want to put off, for several seconds, a really boring knapping task, here's my Official Leondamus List of Most Consequential Brexiteers by Descending Importance
1. Farage
2. Boris
3. Big bad Dom
4. Gove
5. Hannan
So he makes the top 5, but only just! Exciting
You could make a provicative case for Cameron being at the top, even higher than Farage, for being so dumb fucking useless at his job, he needlessly called an unlose-able referendum he wanted and needed to win, he called it in a way which was most disfavourable to himself, he then mishandled it totally and campaigned like a dead celeriac, so he somehow went and lost it, then had to resign as PM
100% on Cameron.
Netanyahu/Trump and Starmer/Powell might have different expectations and definitions of what they define as "progress" or "going well".
And since Starmer has opted out of the conflict it means his, and Powell's, opinion is quite frankly irrelevant.
The only people whose opinions matter are those who are prepared to act.
Wildlife really is the lowest common denominator. It's pitiful
Personally I'd quite like musicians, from Tallis to Handel to Freddy Mercury. Who could object? We'd also need a woman, who is also dead - but we have the ideal: Amy
Arguably Corbyn was also consequential.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/help-us-design-our-next-series-of-banknotes
The rest, you make a fair point. However you could say this about almost any epochal political event, they rarely turn out how you want, even if you will them
How many people ended up pleased by the French Revolution, of those who were crucially involved? Not many at all. Half of them got executed, which doesn't help
One of the banes of my life is the clothing industry who keep changing their offer. All I want from clothing is a replacement for the item which has just worn out. But they will keep tinkering.
The head of the United States’s National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, has resigned over the US-Israel war on Iran.
“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran”, Kent wrote in a letter to Donald Trump posted on X.
“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
It wasn't just Powell who thought progress was being made; the Omani mediator said the same:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1vd95nl9o
What is clear from that account, and from others, is that the US wasn't clear about what they might be asking for (just as they have been extremely unclear about their war aims).
Whether the Iranian regime would have been prepared to offer sufficient concessions for a deal to be possible is questionable, but it is beyond argument that they did move significantly on the nuclear issue.
It's a hard one, but if faced to choose between believing the Omani foreign minister and Powell, or Trump and his real estate representatives (Witkoff and Kushner) ...
British incomes have risen by ~110% in the time that prices have risen by ~95%
Eurostat incomes have risen by ~75% in the time that prices have risen by ~76%
Politicians should never appear on banknotes.
A lot of this is management generating work. Think of the joy of running a whole project to change the look of bank notes!
Such a negative view in that
1. 7 years of profitability
2. Investing at unprecedented levels
3. New Design Centre
4. New building for BEV production
5. New Paint Shop
This is how it should be done if you intend to have a profitable, growing and forward looking company. Instead they focus on the only negative issue.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqwrgd8rgpo
Sorry, but if you opt out of acting, your opinions are rendered moot.
There is no objective measure of good or bad, it is always subjective. What mattered was what the Iranians thought, and what the Israelis/Americans thought, and if they agreed. They did not.
https://x.com/scottygb/status/1566748685341425664?s=61
NEW: Ed Miliband says pubs should serve warm beer to cut high energy costs
Have any of them caught on that flipping coins in the most common way need not be random? Having done this, I can tell you that it is fairly easy to produce the result you want, with a little practice. (The larger the coin and the fewer times it turns over, the easier it is to control the result.)
(A somewhat better way to get random results with a coin is to stand it on edge on a hard surface, and then spin it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5785001-why-the-newest-dimes-are-missing-a-symbol-of-peace-in-the-us/
Yes, I know JM isn't dead, but he always looked a bit pallid at the best of times.
Good that something is being done unlike here where every downward blip in education (or health) is written off to Covid so there is no need for a proper look.
Price stability is the primary objective of both the BoE and ECB, but both have supporting growth as a secondary objective - and both have price changes at an annualised 2.x% rate, but only one has seen real income growth.
Because the idea of "famous historic Brits on banknotes" is not an historic practice, and we should not create fake history that says it is. It started in 1970. Traditional, historic British banknotes are plain.
Because we should not fall for an attempt to limit "historical figures" in the way demanded by some.
Most importantly, because we the people decided we want a change, and there is more to our country than well-known historic figures.
Lloyd George was PM at the time, in any case.
As for Churchill, who is the man frequently brought up, he's only been on a note since 2016.
We didn't just find his videos - we also found Farage's outtakes, which show when his money-making sideline is interrupted by a text message or phone call, requiring him to re-record the video, he appears quick to anger.
https://bsky.app/profile/direthoughts.com/post/3mhb75qtcc22k
To add a key:
Group one is Majorities.
Group two is Pluralities.
Group 3 is Doncaster, which is the only Metropoltan Unitary.
Local perspective: I think Notts Reform are relatively well placed electorally and stability-wise, despite certain ructions.
They were on our coins for decades between them, I think we can cope with Amy and her smack habit