Do we know what percentage of people are on variable utility tarrifs, as opposed to those fixed a year ahead?
In other words, how salient is the actual issue with the public, when the bills arrive at the end of the month?
At present it is roughly half and half. Last number I saw was I think 13m (out of 27-28m households) on fixed.
I just finished a fixed deal at the end of August. For the brief time that other fixed were available they were not cheap. I chose a variable tariff at the time because it was cheaper!. 15 days later i was told by them that my tariff was increasing by £139 a year. Not sure what to expect in the year to come.
What is 'strop' in French? Google Translate doesn't know. (Nor any other language)
une colère
That's anger. Bad mood or grumpiness is mauvaise humeur. None quite hit the mark.
Yes, I don't have anything that is quite right. I think "strop" carries with it a certain active, excitable sense that brings us closer to anger than to bad mood. "Colère" is the best I can do.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
Would it? I cant remember what the Tories did last time though before that it was only 2 needed, but the MPs filtered before it got to the members.
The nomination level is pointless unless MPs take their role seriously anyway.
And why on earth would Keir step down? Itd because bold leader role resign as they were slightly underwhelming.
I actually hope France and AUKUS can find a way to move on and agree a close relationship
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
Taiwan’s application might be good for the U.K. CPTPP might concentrate on U.K. first (who after all, applied first) to avoid annoying either China or Taiwan.
I also learned just now that Taiwan already has a FTA with NZ and Singapore.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Starmer has decided he needs a Clause 4 moment.
The proposed changes are sensible, designed to provoke loonies in the Labour Party, and presumably winnable for Keir.
However, nobody cares so this will not achieve his actual aim which is media plaudits for bravery.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Yet that is very likely what we can anticipate: Boris v Keir.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Starmer has decided he needs a Clause 4 moment.
The proposed changes are sensible, designed to provoke loonies in the Labour Party, and presumably winnable for Keir.
However, nobody cares so this will not achieve his actual aim which is media plaudits for bravery.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Yet that is very likely what we can anticipate: Boris v Keir.
Eye of the beholder, I guess. I don't think Starmer is an idiot. He's not the most inspiring person in the world, but in a two horse race I'd vote for him any day.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Yet that is very likely what we can anticipate: Boris v Keir.
Eye of the beholder, I guess. I don't think Starmer is an idiot. He's not the most inspiring person in the world, but in a two horse race I'd vote for him any day.
Me too.
Look, both men are intelligent. But Keir is politically idiotic, and Boris’s buffoon-act is grating and ultimately denotes fecklessness, immaturity and a contempt for the public.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
But GardenWalker says NZ has an FTA with Taiwan already.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Yet that is very likely what we can anticipate: Boris v Keir.
Eye of the beholder, I guess. I don't think Starmer is an idiot. He's not the most inspiring person in the world, but in a two horse race I'd vote for him any day.
Me too.
Look, both men are intelligent. But Keir is politically idiotic, and Boris’s buffoon-act is grating and ultimately denotes fecklessness, immaturity and a contempt for the public.
It might be argued that spending three years trying to overturn the result of a referendum might indicate a certain contempt for the public too.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
What (state run) things were we doing badly in the 70s that we're doing well now?
If you replace "well" with "better", essentially all of them.
I think essentially all services, public and private, are better today than they used to be. Don't @ me with your counterexamples.
This is the point I'm trying to get across. You can look back at lots of stuff in the 70s and shake your head at how rubbish it was by today's standards. It's not sound to just pick out examples that were state owned and say "see that shows the public sector can't run things". By this logic the 20s, the 50s, the 70s show that NOBODY can run things.
I actually hope France and AUKUS can find a way to move on and agree a close relationship
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
You have been one of the most excitable people on here about this whole thing. Day 1 you were going crazy about it not being broadcast live by the BBC, and you've variously dubbed this a "crisis" and a "devastating blow" for France. Still, I'm glad to see that after an actual full week you've started to put forward some calmer thoughts about it.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
I dont think anyone has suggested they are that compromised!
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
What (state run) things were we doing badly in the 70s that we're doing well now?
If you replace "well" with "better", essentially all of them.
I think essentially all services, public and private, are better today than they used to be. Don't @ me with your counterexamples.
This is the point I'm trying to get across. You can look back at lots of stuff in the 70s and shake your head at how rubbish it was by today's standards. It's not sound to just pick out examples that were public sector and say "see that shows the public sector can't run things". By this logic the 20s, the 50s, the 70s show that NOBODY can run things.
Pb.com was shit in the 70s. I never bothered reading a single post, and not just because I was at primary school.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
What (state run) things were we doing badly in the 70s that we're doing well now?
If you replace "well" with "better", essentially all of them.
I think essentially all services, public and private, are better today than they used to be. Don't @ me with your counterexamples.
This is the point I'm trying to get across. You can look back at lots of stuff in the 70s and shake your head at how rubbish it was by today's standards. It's not sound to just pick out those that were public sector and say "see that shows the public sector can't run things". By this logic the 20s, the 50s, the 70s show that NOBODY can run things.
And you're right. We need better quality arguments, and to look for evidence from not just our own country to decide what things belong in the public sector and what in the private sector. "Trains used to be rubbish!" is little more than entry-level trolling in place of an argument for or against anything.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Xi land is pretty good, but as a distant fear, improbable or not, not present reality I'd have thought.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
I do on the whole believe the history in the Flashman books, and he is very clear that batter was the original term anyway.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
Infiltration of the Women's Institute? New She-land!
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Did it need changing ? Male midwives exist.
I don't really get language luddites to be fair. Was it absolutely necessary? No, of course not. Does it better represent what it is describing? Yes. Will it annoy people who grew up with a different meaning, as nearly all new words do? Yes Is language better if we keep it archaic or continually refresh it? Refresh it.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
I think the Mail has picked the wrong target. Batters is already in occasional usage so it will annoy some people who dislike that term, but not annoy enough to get an outrage going since its already out there and makes sense.
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, I think that the only reason to press for a return to the Electoral College is that he plans to step down. Otherwise changing the system makes no sense.
A simpler change that keeps OMOV would be to change the number of MP nominations to perhaps 34%. In effect that would give a system like the Conservative Party.
It could just be as simple as there is a chance of a snap election next year, and Starmer knows that if Labour lose there's a chance the party could lurch back left again. I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
Yet that is very likely what we can anticipate: Boris v Keir.
Eye of the beholder, I guess. I don't think Starmer is an idiot. He's not the most inspiring person in the world, but in a two horse race I'd vote for him any day.
Me too.
Look, both men are intelligent. But Keir is politically idiotic, and Boris’s buffoon-act is grating and ultimately denotes fecklessness, immaturity and a contempt for the public.
It might be argued that spending three years trying to overturn the result of a referendum might indicate a certain contempt for the public too.
Also a "Labour" Government dished out a right shellacking to an inept centre-right Opposition. If you think Starmer's an ineffective leader, he's a political titan next to Judith Collins.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
I dont think anyone has suggested they are that compromised!
The problem they have is that the current NZ government wants co-operation, not confrontation with China.
Not vetoing Taiwan entering the CPTPP would be seen as very, very rude by the Chinese. Bang goes all the friendship stuff, trade deals etc.
Vetoing Taiwan without a good reason would be somewhat embarrassing/tricky though.
EDIT: for some reason this reminds me of the flag scene at the end of the book Dune. Paul has sent word to the Emperor that he is still alive. Which flag will the Emperor hoist to recognise whose side he is on? Atreides or Harkonnen? In the end he hoists the CHOAM flag - to signify he going with the money.....
Taiwan’s application might be good for the U.K. CPTPP might concentrate on U.K. first (who after all, applied first) to avoid annoying either China or Taiwan.
I also learned just now that Taiwan already has a FTA with NZ and Singapore.
I know we have our moments but I would say that I had overlooked that Wellington is the home for CPTPP applications and I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression
I have a great affection for NZ as our eldest emigrated there in 2003 -2015 and was very happy until the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2011 and his attendance at ground zero and the rescue attempts. I have spoken of this previously but he is now serious ill in Vancouver suffering from PTSD triggered by his return visit to Christchurch just after the Mosque massacre when everything flooded back to him from 2011
We visited four times and fell in love with NZ and Christchurch but whenever we went, we did feel a long way from anywhere else away
No matter @HYUFD nonsense about France and NZ aligning with China there is no way the Kiwis will side with China even though it presently has a close relationship.
Indeed my son spent a lot of his time on business in China
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
A hypothesis: an elderly local schoolmate of Charles, except probably of Charles' dad, went there 10 years ago and came back saying in terms of non-satirical approbation that it was still just like England in the 1950s. Perhaps a young right on female PM is perceived as undermining the last remaining bastion of OKness?
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Did it need changing ? Male midwives exist.
I don't really get language luddites to be fair. Was it absolutely necessary? No, of course not. Does it better represent what it is describing? Yes. Will it annoy people who grew up with a different meaning, as nearly all new words do? Yes Is language better if we keep it archaic or continually refresh it? Refresh it.
I get annoyed at new terms which aren't necessary as one already exists. But this is not even that, is just expanding an existing one to cover both sexes, whilst people can becmore specific if they need to. If batters had not been used before maybe, but it has.
I actually hope France and AUKUS can find a way to move on and agree a close relationship
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
You have been one of the most excitable people on here about this whole thing. Day 1 you were going crazy about it not being broadcast live by the BBC, and you've variously dubbed this a "crisis" and a "devastating blow" for France. Still, I'm glad to see that after an actual full week you've started to put forward some calmer thoughts about it.
I have not suddenly changed my mind, this was always the sensible position and hopefully France recognises it
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Yep. The fact that Jacinda has managed to avoid chortling away through the deaths of thousands of people makes her a prime enemy of Boris’s little helpers.
I actually hope France and AUKUS can find a way to move on and agree a close relationship
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
You have been one of the most excitable people on here about this whole thing. Day 1 you were going crazy about it not being broadcast live by the BBC, and you've variously dubbed this a "crisis" and a "devastating blow" for France. Still, I'm glad to see that after an actual full week you've started to put forward some calmer thoughts about it.
I have not suddenly changed my mind, this was always the sensible position and hopefully France recognises it
It's your tone I was commenting on. You come on today saying everybody should be calm and reasonable, which I cannot argue with. But you were a bit manic for a few days so it's a little unselfaware.
A hypothesis: an elderly local schoolmate of Charles, except probably of Charles' dad, went there 10 years ago and came back saying in terms of non-satirical approbation that it was still just like England in the 1950s. Perhaps a young right on female PM is perceived as undermining the last remaining bastion of OKness?
Parts of the South Islands do still have a "Britishness" about them - Christchurch and Dunedin in particular. The North Island less so - the American and Asian influences seem more prevalent. Many of the towns are just one long street without much either side - you see a lot of American style trucks but Auckland has a strong Asian feel. Throw in the Maori element and it's not as British as is widely believed.
It's a country with its own identity - it's not a colony.
If this is the reaction, @Mij_Europe, doesn’t it say more about Paris thinking too much with its gut than its head? Johnson is a wind-up merchant—that’s his schtick—partly because it distracts from his ruthlessness (in this case, costing France €€€)
A wind up merchant. Yes he is. You see it all the time. Eg in the reshuffle, teaming the Midget Gem with the freakishly tall Simon Clarke. Ho ho, chuckle chuckle. It's all totally hilarious. If you're a facetious dickhead still mentally in adolescence that is.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Yep. The fact that Jacinda has managed to avoid chortling away through the deaths of thousands of people makes her a prime enemy of Boris’s little helpers.
The fact remains that China gets very very upset if a country does any kind of diplomatic deal or treaty with Taiwan. Given that China applied the the CPTPP, I think it very probable that they would react very strongly to Taiwan being accepted. If Taiwan was accepted and China rejected - well that would be a flat declaration....
IIRC acceptance of new members is by unanimous voting. China will very likely be vetoed by one of the other participants, I think. If it gets that far....
Which makes it and interesting position for NZ - which way do they go?
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Yep. The fact that Jacinda has managed to avoid chortling away through the deaths of thousands of people makes her a prime enemy of Boris’s little helpers.
New Zealand looks like it'll have comparable vaccination to the UK by Christmas. They might open up a bit more then.
Taiwan’s application might be good for the U.K. CPTPP might concentrate on U.K. first (who after all, applied first) to avoid annoying either China or Taiwan.
I also learned just now that Taiwan already has a FTA with NZ and Singapore.
I know we have our moments but I would say that I had overlooked that Wellington is the home for CPTPP applications and I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression
I have a great affection for NZ as our eldest emigrated there in 2003 -2015 and was very happy until the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2011 and his attendance at ground zero and the rescue attempts. I have spoken of this previously but he is now serious ill in Vancouver suffering from PTSD triggered by his return visit to Christchurch just after the Mosque massacre when everything flooded back to him from 2011
We visited four times and fell in love with NZ and Christchurch but whenever we went, we did feel a long way from anywhere else away
No matter @HYUFD nonsense about France and NZ aligning with China there is no way the Kiwis will side with China even though it presently has a close relationship.
Indeed my son spent a lot of his time on business in China
Thanks Big G.
I do give you some stick but that is because I believe you too quickly follow (and promote) the narrative served up this very dishonest government.
I won’t change, as I do enjoy serving up invective on here.
But in terms of your family, as a New Zealander I would like to thank your son for what he did that day, and I am deeply sorry for the burden he carries as a result. I do pray he is able to find peace.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Did it need changing ? Male midwives exist.
Gonna have to stop you there. Midwife is cognate with German mitt weib, with woman, so the wife is the person giving birth, not the attendant.
Have been taking an unpaid (unless you'd care to send a generous stipend my way?) sabbatical from PB, though am lurking from time to time.
Just back for a bit to ask, what is the translation of "strop" in English, let alone French or Finnish or what -have-you?
Here in the colonies the verb "to strop" refers to how an old-time barber uses a leather strap (or strop) to keep the edge on his straight razor.
FYI strop in the sense its being used in connection with French reaction to AUKUS is virtually unknown to Americans from sea to shining sea.
And BTW, if France ends up joining AUKUS would it then be called FAUKUS?
Note that yours truly has keen insight into nuke subs, given that the Emerald City of Seattle is only about 30 miles as the crow (or drone) flies from the USN's trident submarine base on the West Coast.
Years ago was on a small seaplane flying from Seattle to Victoria BC. It was a bright, beautiful summer morning, and as we flew over the Strait of Juan da Fuca. Looking down, we saw a rare sight: a trident submarine cruising on the surface . . .
I actually hope France and AUKUS can find a way to move on and agree a close relationship
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
You have been one of the most excitable people on here about this whole thing. Day 1 you were going crazy about it not being broadcast live by the BBC, and you've variously dubbed this a "crisis" and a "devastating blow" for France. Still, I'm glad to see that after an actual full week you've started to put forward some calmer thoughts about it.
I have not suddenly changed my mind, this was always the sensible position and hopefully France recognises it
It's your tone I was commenting on. You come on today saying everybody should be calm and reasonable, which I cannot argue with. But you were a bit manic for a few days so it's a little unselfaware.
The President of the US, PM of Australia and Boris issue an embargoed press release to all the media of a very important announcement for 10.00pm
Sky took it live but the BBC could barely bring itself to comment on it at all and certainly not live'
This was a very important announcement and if the national broadcaster does not broadcast it then that cannot expect it to be ignored
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Did it need changing ? Male midwives exist.
Midwife is cognate with German mitt weib, with woman,
Have been taking an unpaid (unless you'd care to send a generous stipend my way?) sabbatical from PB, though am lurking from time to time.
Just back for a bit to ask, what is the translation of "strop" in English, let alone French or Finnish or what -have-you?
Here in the colonies the verb "to strop" refers to how an old-time barber uses a leather strap (or strop) to keep the edge on his straight razor.
FYI strop in the sense its being used in connection with French reaction to AUKUS is virtually unknown to Americans from sea to shining sea.
And BTW, if France ends up joining AUKUS would it then be called FAUKUS?
Note that yours truly has keen insight into nuke subs, given that the Emerald City of Seattle is only about 30 miles as the crow (or drone) flies from the USN's trident submarine base on the West Coast.
Years ago was on a small seaplane flying from Seattle to Victoria BC. It was a bright, beautiful summer morning, and as we flew over the Strait of Juan da Fuca. Looking down, we saw a rare sight: a trident submarine cruising on the surface . . .
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Yep. The fact that Jacinda has managed to avoid chortling away through the deaths of thousands of people makes her a prime enemy of Boris’s little helpers.
New Zealand looks like it'll have comparable vaccination to the UK by Christmas. They might open up a bit more then.
Let’s see.
The government believes it has contained delta, and Auckland has been lowered to “Level 3”: takeaways are allowed to open.
I personally think Jacinda is being too risky on this occasion.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
I love the insular way that what your domestic political rivals think about it is more important to you than the fact of its craven appeasement of China.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
What (state run) things were we doing badly in the 70s that we're doing well now?
If you replace "well" with "better", essentially all of them.
I think essentially all services, public and private, are better today than they used to be. Don't @ me with your counterexamples.
This is the point I'm trying to get across. You can look back at lots of stuff in the 70s and shake your head at how rubbish it was by today's standards. It's not sound to just pick out examples that were state owned and say "see that shows the public sector can't run things". By this logic the 20s, the 50s, the 70s show that NOBODY can run things.
On the one hand, I've got old people (and not even all of them, as some seem to quite like British Rail) telling me that in the 70s publicly owned train services was rubbish and inevitably always will be because its run by public sector. On the other hand... I've lived in London and used TfL, public transport in London is great.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Yep. The fact that Jacinda has managed to avoid chortling away through the deaths of thousands of people makes her a prime enemy of Boris’s little helpers.
The fact remains that China gets very very upset if a country does any kind of diplomatic deal or treaty with Taiwan. Given that China applied the the CPTPP, I think it very probable that they would react very strongly to Taiwan being accepted. If Taiwan was accepted and China rejected - well that would be a flat declaration....
IIRC acceptance of new members is by unanimous voting. China will very likely be vetoed by one of the other participants, I think. If it gets that far....
Which makes it and interesting position for NZ - which way do they go?
It’s a fascinating question.
No, NZ would not veto a Chinese application. Why should it. It will tell itself that trade and politics should be kept separate (sound familiar?)
Australia might; I hope it does actually.
Taiwan might be vetoed by Malaysia. I don’t really understand Malaysia’s positioning in what is quickly becoming Cold War 2.0.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
I love the insular way that what your domestic political rivals think about it is more important to you than the fact of its craven appeasement of China.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
Perhaps you can give us a few examples of “craven appeasement”.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
I think the Mail has picked the wrong target. Batters is already in occasional usage so it will annoy some people who dislike that term, but not annoy enough to get an outrage going since its already out there and makes sense.
I think it's a lot of nonsense. But people do this these sort of utterly trivial things these days to give themselves cover.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
I love the insular way that what your domestic political rivals think about it is more important to you than the fact of its craven appeasement of China.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
Perhaps you can give us a few examples of “craven appeasement”.
I have been wondering for some time if we should switch our recognition from China to Taiwan, especially after what they've done in Hong Kong. We could demote China's embassy here to a representative office, like the one Taiwan has in Victoria. Might encourage other countries to follow suit.
Some think we only recognised the Communists because of that traitor Burgess in the FO.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
I love the insular way that what your domestic political rivals think about it is more important to you than the fact of its craven appeasement of China.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
Perhaps you can give us a few examples of “craven appeasement”.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Xi-Land expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
Did it need changing ? Male midwives exist.
Gonna have to stop you there. Midwife is cognate with German mitt weib, with woman, so the wife is the person giving birth, not the attendant.
Bit presumptuous in these times to assume a woman is giving birth isn't it ?
Theory: Keir Starmer has told close confidantes he is standing down (for some reason). They are worried the left would win a subsequent leadership contest, so have urged him to change the election rules.
Seems a plausible reason to have tried it this hastily and haphazardly ..?
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Xi-Land expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
Corrected it for you.
True to form. It’s about as funny as Stuart Dickson posting that Jim Murphy pic over and over.
Worse, because at least Stuart knows the odd thing about Scottish politics.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Women are increasingly going to play the same sports as men, and be talked about for playing sport. Which do you prefer batswomen, batspeople or batters?
But what do you call Third Man?
Or the night watchman, or twelfth man ?
Twelfth man is clearly sub/substitute fielder. Professional teams don't really have twelfth men anymore, it might vary throughout a match who comes on.
Anyway there is a difference between what is niche jargon within a sport and the main words around describing the sport, which of those mentioned only includes batsman.
On topic, one Democrat- leaning publication summed it up well: Biden’s ratings are getting hit because people are now focusing on Biden himself rather than viewing him through the lens of being ‘Not Trump’.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
Have been taking an unpaid (unless you'd care to send a generous stipend my way?) sabbatical from PB, though am lurking from time to time.
Just back for a bit to ask, what is the translation of "strop" in English, let alone French or Finnish or what -have-you?
Here in the colonies the verb "to strop" refers to how an old-time barber uses a leather strap (or strop) to keep the edge on his straight razor.
FYI strop in the sense its being used in connection with French reaction to AUKUS is virtually unknown to Americans from sea to shining sea.
And BTW, if France ends up joining AUKUS would it then be called FAUKUS?
Note that yours truly has keen insight into nuke subs, given that the Emerald City of Seattle is only about 30 miles as the crow (or drone) flies from the USN's trident submarine base on the West Coast.
Years ago was on a small seaplane flying from Seattle to Victoria BC. It was a bright, beautiful summer morning, and as we flew over the Strait of Juan da Fuca. Looking down, we saw a rare sight: a trident submarine cruising on the surface . . .
Good to see you back, I think we were a bit worried when you stopped posting around the time of that North West "heat dome" thingy!
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
I love the insular way that what your domestic political rivals think about it is more important to you than the fact of its craven appeasement of China.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
Perhaps you can give us a few examples of “craven appeasement”.
Um. It's policy towards China and keeping its gob shut about it, and apologising/whatbouting on it, in exchange for trading concessions.
Don't insult both my intelligence and yours by pretending you don't know about this.
"MCC says batsmen will now be called 'batters' in woke new 'gender-neutral' laws to make the game 'inclusive for all'
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
Yep. The fact that Jacinda has managed to avoid chortling away through the deaths of thousands of people makes her a prime enemy of Boris’s little helpers.
The fact remains that China gets very very upset if a country does any kind of diplomatic deal or treaty with Taiwan. Given that China applied the the CPTPP, I think it very probable that they would react very strongly to Taiwan being accepted. If Taiwan was accepted and China rejected - well that would be a flat declaration....
IIRC acceptance of new members is by unanimous voting. China will very likely be vetoed by one of the other participants, I think. If it gets that far....
Which makes it and interesting position for NZ - which way do they go?
It’s a fascinating question.
No, NZ would not veto a Chinese application. Why should it. It will tell itself that trade and politics should be kept separate (sound familiar?)
Australia might; I hope it does actually.
Taiwan might be vetoed by Malaysia. I don’t really understand Malaysia’s positioning in what is quickly becoming Cold War 2.0.
NZ won't veto China - I am quite sure of that. Vetoing China would be flat declaration of hostilities as far as the Chinese would be concerned.
But I am also quite sure that several of the other CPTPP countries would. Australia is the most obvious, but I think several others won't want China in the room...
I rather think that China will use opposition to Taiwan's accession as a litmus test - if you come out against it, you are a "Friend". If you don't try and block it or are in favour - you are "Hostile".
My guess is that the face saving formula all round will be to put both Taiwan and China's applications in a folder marked "No Further Action In Our Lifetimes".
I have been wondering for some time if we should switch our recognition from China to Taiwan, especially after what they've done in Hong Kong. We could demote China's embassy here to a representative office, like the one Taiwan has in Victoria. Might encourage other countries to follow suit.
Some think we only recognised the Communists because of that traitor Burgess in the FO.
Taiwan’s application might be good for the U.K. CPTPP might concentrate on U.K. first (who after all, applied first) to avoid annoying either China or Taiwan.
I also learned just now that Taiwan already has a FTA with NZ and Singapore.
I know we have our moments but I would say that I had overlooked that Wellington is the home for CPTPP applications and I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression
I have a great affection for NZ as our eldest emigrated there in 2003 -2015 and was very happy until the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2011 and his attendance at ground zero and the rescue attempts. I have spoken of this previously but he is now serious ill in Vancouver suffering from PTSD triggered by his return visit to Christchurch just after the Mosque massacre when everything flooded back to him from 2011
We visited four times and fell in love with NZ and Christchurch but whenever we went, we did feel a long way from anywhere else away
No matter @HYUFD nonsense about France and NZ aligning with China there is no way the Kiwis will side with China even though it presently has a close relationship.
Indeed my son spent a lot of his time on business in China
Thanks Big G.
I do give you some stick but that is because I believe you too quickly follow (and promote) the narrative served up this very dishonest government.
I won’t change, as I do enjoy serving up invective on here.
But in terms of your family, as a New Zealander I would like to thank your son for what he did that day, and I am deeply sorry for the burden he carries as a result. I do pray he is able to find peace.
That is so kind of you and it was only a couple of weeks ago he broke down on the phone as he described in the most graphic detail the sights and sounds he had seen at the CTV building collapse to the point it had me sobbing with grief
It was extraordinary that he returned just after the Mosque massacre in Spring 2019 and while laying flowers at the Mosque which was very close to his previous workplace he collapsed and was rushed into Christchurch A & E
The terrors of 2011 had been ignited and he shows little sign of recovery today despite extensive treatment
Your words are very greatly and emotionally appreciated and, so there is no doubt, I love NZ with all my heart and soul and will not criticize it other than to hope and believe it will take the sensible path with China
I know we touched on it already. But I remain gobsmacked that Starmer is trying to reintroduce the electoral college. I find myself on the same side of the argument as Laura Pillock and the other trots.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Xi-Land expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
Corrected it for you.
True to form. It’s about as funny as Stuart Dickson posting that Jim Murphy pic over and over.
Worse, because at least Stuart knows the odd thing about Scottish politics.
Can someone explain why the government should be bailing out energy resellers? It's not as though they set fire to the pylons when they go under. They're nothing more than a call centre and dodgy branding. We're with Bulb, almost certain they'll go under too as they refused to hedge against rising prices.
Any company that sells long and buys short that fails to hedge absolutely deserves to go bust and there shouldn't be any bail out whatsoever.
There's procedures to protect customers being moved over to suppliers of last resort and its reasonable for that to be underwritten - but no bailout for failed business models.
I wouldn't say they necessarily deserve to go bust but if they mismatch maturities without the reserves to cover a move against them, that's reckless and they shouldn't get a state bailout.
Public ownership looks the way to go for retail energy supply. One entity, simple tariff, uniform stable pricing, strip out all the needless complexity.
How about telecom too? I mean, I can remember how great BT was before it was privatised! British rail was really good as well, and as for British Leyland, what quality! Oh, yes, the man in Whitehall. He definitely knows how to deliver great service!
It's a mistake to freeze your thinking in aspic like that. Privatization could have been the right thing then, public ownership the right thing now. Times change. There's no greater fan of private sector free enterprise than me, it's what stops me going full on hard left, that I can't envisage a better system for wealth generation, but there are things that sit more logically in the public sector and imo this is one of them. A necessity of life, the same product at point of supply, costs a significant portion of a less well off person's budget so affordability AND stability is required, badly run in the private sector, a confected and fussy market that doesn't work, it ticks every box. As for your other suggestions for de-privatising, rail yes, cars no. We can also look at retail banking and mortgages, strong case there but a good case against too.
Where is the logic that the man in Whitehall knows best? The reality is that "public ownership" is a misnomer. The public have absolutely no ownership because they have no control. It is pointless ownership. In the past the real "owners" were the trades unions. The nationalised companies were run not for the benefit of the consumer, but for the benefit of the employees of the company -it could be argued that this is the case with "Our" NHS (God bless her and all who sail in her, they can do no wrong). If regulation is applied correctly there is no reason to hose taxpayers money at nationalised industries, that are almost inevitably, badly run and inefficient.
But we're not in the 70s now. Plenty of things were done badly in the 70s but are done well now. There's no reason publicly owned utilities and transport shouldn't be another of them. It's clear this energy "market" is a nonsense. The case for a rationalized, consolidated, simpler, safer, more efficient model is compelling. You can't go rejecting that out of hand due to childhood memories of Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon.
What (state run) things were we doing badly in the 70s that we're doing well now?
If you replace "well" with "better", essentially all of them.
I think essentially all services, public and private, are better today than they used to be. Don't @ me with your counterexamples.
This is the point I'm trying to get across. You can look back at lots of stuff in the 70s and shake your head at how rubbish it was by today's standards. It's not sound to just pick out examples that were public sector and say "see that shows the public sector can't run things". By this logic the 20s, the 50s, the 70s show that NOBODY can run things.
Pb.com was shit in the 70s. I never bothered reading a single post, and not just because I was at primary school.
By my formula, essential for life, same product to all, natural monopoly, universal access required, therefore nationalize!
Public Blogging dot com. Funded by general taxation.
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
I love the insular way that what your domestic political rivals think about it is more important to you than the fact of its craven appeasement of China.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
Perhaps you can give us a few examples of “craven appeasement”.
Um. It's policy towards China and keeping its gob shut about it, and apologising/whatbouting on it, in exchange for trading concessions.
Don't insult both my intelligence and yours by pretending you don't know about this.
Cool. So you don’t have any examples.
You really need to up your game; you’re increasingly resembling a booze-addled sub-editor on the Daily Express who spends all day interviewing his typewriter.
I have been wondering for some time if we should switch our recognition from China to Taiwan, especially after what they've done in Hong Kong. We could demote China's embassy here to a representative office, like the one Taiwan has in Victoria. Might encourage other countries to follow suit.
Some think we only recognised the Communists because of that traitor Burgess in the FO.
That would be to kick over the diplomatic ant hill. What China would do if that happened too any extent would be very unpredictable. In the sense of a nuclear armed superpower clears the table onto the floor and probably throws the table though a window....
I have been wondering for some time if we should switch our recognition from China to Taiwan, especially after what they've done in Hong Kong. We could demote China's embassy here to a representative office, like the one Taiwan has in Victoria. Might encourage other countries to follow suit.
Some think we only recognised the Communists because of that traitor Burgess in the FO.
Talk about the ultimate in trolling
Official communications along the lines of "Prime Minister Johnson is delighted to be meeting Chinese President Tsai Ing-wen" would be the ultimate troll to Beijing.
I know we touched on it already. But I remain gobsmacked that Starmer is trying to reintroduce the electoral college. I find myself on the same side of the argument as Laura Pillock and the other trots.
I think the MPs should choose the leader. Then the members choose the MPs and so on. Otherwise we end up drifting further and further into American style partisanship. The Tories moving to membership votes in the final round was a big staging post in their “journey”.
I’m optimistic that we can activate the UK’s AI potential. To truly excel, it should focus on areas of applied scientific research, eg life sci and cyber, where it has world-leading capabilities.
I did have to chuckle that people actually in the biz seem generally very positive, and they get a quote from an anthropologist, with a background in Religious Studies, who witters about Brexit and exceptionalism (just because we have been exceptional in the recent past).
Now who do I listen to the COO of Deepmind or an somebody who has zero technical knowledge of AI / ML......
I have been wondering for some time if we should switch our recognition from China to Taiwan, especially after what they've done in Hong Kong. We could demote China's embassy here to a representative office, like the one Taiwan has in Victoria. Might encourage other countries to follow suit.
Some think we only recognised the Communists because of that traitor Burgess in the FO.
Talk about the ultimate in trolling
Official communications along the lines of "Prime Minister Johnson is delighted to be meeting Chinese President Tsai Ing-wen" would be the ultimate troll to Beijing.
I took that initially as a joke name, like Biggus Dickus.
As in, "we are joining the CPTPP at some stage. We are just not tsai Ing-wen."
Yes, if they accept Taiwan but reject China. But vice-versa would be a kow-tow. Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
It'll be interesting in New Zealand - trying to come up with a reason to veto Taiwan without simply sounding like they are following orders from Beijing.
Another “New Zealand expert”. A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
New Zealand is now an object of absolute hatred for the British Right. When did this come about? Why?
I love the insular way that what your domestic political rivals think about it is more important to you than the fact of its craven appeasement of China.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
Perhaps you can give us a few examples of “craven appeasement”.
Um. It's policy towards China and keeping its gob shut about it, and apologising/whatbouting on it, in exchange for trading concessions.
Don't insult both my intelligence and yours by pretending you don't know about this.
Cool. So you don’t have any examples.
You really need to up your game; you’re increasingly resembling a booze-addled sub-editor on the Daily Express who spends all day interviewing his typewriter.
Ah, that's why you're in such a bad mood today.
Maybe log off, sober up and have a nice warm bath and an early night?
I know we touched on it already. But I remain gobsmacked that Starmer is trying to reintroduce the electoral college. I find myself on the same side of the argument as Laura Pillock and the other trots.
I think the MPs should choose the leader. Then the members choose the MPs and so on. Otherwise we end up drifting further and further into American style partisanship. The Tories moving to membership votes in the final round was a big staging post in their “journey”.
The Labour system now is fine. Just increase the threshhold for entry onto the members ballot to 25%+ of PLP members...
Comments
Is it Bungle from 1970s TV show “Rainbow”?
The nomination level is pointless unless MPs take their role seriously anyway.
And why on earth would Keir step down? Itd because bold leader role resign as they were slightly underwhelming.
EDIT: maybe we weren't. There was earlier mention of "le strop", but geoffw wasn't replying directly to that.
Their only safe path is to reject both, pussyfooting.
The EU is not going to be able to form its own defence force, not least as Germany is unlikely to be interested, and a defence and security agreement between the UK and France as proposed by Mark Rutte in Downing Street last friday is the most sensible and practical way forward
I support AUKUS as I do believe it is the correct way to address issues in the Trans-Pacific, but all the west need to move on from the anger and fury and concentrate on the main aim to help defend the area from aggression from China, not least Taiwan and the South China sea, but also come together through the CPTPP to compete on commercial trading terms with China
This will take time but I do not want anyone to think I am against France being integral to the defence and security of the Trans Pacific but also I want France and UK to do the same in Europe
If all sides could just learn that confrontating each other serves no one, and improving understanding of each others issues and resolving them, would be a huge step forward and benefit all the people's of Europe and beyond
CPTPP might concentrate on U.K. first (who after all, applied first) to avoid annoying either China or Taiwan.
I also learned just now that Taiwan already has a FTA with NZ and Singapore.
I think it's probably good for the country that he's doing this. We can't afford another election when the two biggest parties are led by total idiots.
The proposed changes are sensible, designed to provoke loonies in the Labour Party, and presumably winnable for Keir.
However, nobody cares so this will not achieve his actual aim which is media plaudits for bravery.
Look, both men are intelligent.
But Keir is politically idiotic, and Boris’s buffoon-act is grating and ultimately denotes fecklessness, immaturity and a contempt for the public.
MCC said that the move was 'natural progression' and it changed Laws of Cricket
It said the update, which has been published online, was to make sport 'inclusive'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10016479/MCC-says-batsmen-called-batters-woke-new-gender-neutral-laws.html
A lot of them on here these days!
@CasinoRoyale is so chuffed with his “New Xi-land” joke he repeats it each thread. In between huffing and puffing about woke infiltration of the Women’s Institute and the Scots Guards.
Still, I'm glad to see that after an actual full week you've started to put forward some calmer thoughts about it.
New She-land!
Was it absolutely necessary? No, of course not.
Does it better represent what it is describing? Yes.
Will it annoy people who grew up with a different meaning, as nearly all new words do? Yes
Is language better if we keep it archaic or continually refresh it? Refresh it.
Not vetoing Taiwan entering the CPTPP would be seen as very, very rude by the Chinese. Bang goes all the friendship stuff, trade deals etc.
Vetoing Taiwan without a good reason would be somewhat embarrassing/tricky though.
EDIT: for some reason this reminds me of the flag scene at the end of the book Dune. Paul has sent word to the Emperor that he is still alive. Which flag will the Emperor hoist to recognise whose side he is on? Atreides or Harkonnen? In the end he hoists the CHOAM flag - to signify he going with the money.....
I have a great affection for NZ as our eldest emigrated there in 2003 -2015 and was very happy until the earthquakes in Christchurch in 2011 and his attendance at ground zero and the rescue attempts. I have spoken of this previously but he is now serious ill in Vancouver suffering from PTSD triggered by his return visit to Christchurch just after the Mosque massacre when everything flooded back to him from 2011
We visited four times and fell in love with NZ and Christchurch but whenever we went, we did feel a long way from anywhere else away
No matter @HYUFD nonsense about France and NZ aligning with China there is no way the Kiwis will side with China even though it presently has a close relationship.
Indeed my son spent a lot of his time on business in China
It's a country with its own identity - it's not a colony.
IIRC acceptance of new members is by unanimous voting. China will very likely be vetoed by one of the other participants, I think. If it gets that far....
Which makes it and interesting position for NZ - which way do they go?
I do give you some stick but that is because I believe you too quickly follow (and promote) the narrative served up this very dishonest government.
I won’t change, as I do enjoy serving up invective on here.
But in terms of your family, as a New Zealander I would like to thank your son for what he did that day, and I am deeply sorry for the burden he carries as a result. I do pray he is able to find peace.
Have been taking an unpaid (unless you'd care to send a generous stipend my way?) sabbatical from PB, though am lurking from time to time.
Just back for a bit to ask, what is the translation of "strop" in English, let alone French or Finnish or what -have-you?
Here in the colonies the verb "to strop" refers to how an old-time barber uses a leather strap (or strop) to keep the edge on his straight razor.
FYI strop in the sense its being used in connection with French reaction to AUKUS is virtually unknown to Americans from sea to shining sea.
And BTW, if France ends up joining AUKUS would it then be called FAUKUS?
Note that yours truly has keen insight into nuke subs, given that the Emerald City of Seattle is only about 30 miles as the crow (or drone) flies from the USN's trident submarine base on the West Coast.
Years ago was on a small seaplane flying from Seattle to Victoria BC. It was a bright, beautiful summer morning, and as we flew over the Strait of Juan da Fuca. Looking down, we saw a rare sight: a trident submarine cruising on the surface . . .
Sky took it live but the BBC could barely bring itself to comment on it at all and certainly not live'
This was a very important announcement and if the national broadcaster does not broadcast it then that cannot expect it to be ignored
However, I am pleased we are on the same page now
The government believes it has contained delta, and Auckland has been lowered to “Level 3”: takeaways are allowed to open.
I personally think Jacinda is being too risky on this occasion.
We truly are going down the tubes if that's the measure of the stance you take.
No, NZ would not veto a Chinese application.
Why should it. It will tell itself that trade and politics should be kept separate (sound familiar?)
Australia might; I hope it does actually.
Taiwan might be vetoed by Malaysia. I don’t really understand Malaysia’s positioning in what is quickly becoming Cold War 2.0.
Next?
Some think we only recognised the Communists because of that traitor Burgess in the FO.
Not sure Fisher is a reliable narrator to be honest.
Entertaining, informative, inspirational, mellow and VERY English.
It’s about as funny as Stuart Dickson posting that Jim Murphy pic over and over.
Worse, because at least Stuart knows the odd thing about Scottish politics.
Anyway there is a difference between what is niche jargon within a sport and the main words around describing the sport, which of those mentioned only includes batsman.
Obviously, coming into the mid-terms, there will be a focus on tying the GOP into Trump, as happened in the CA recall election. That may work but there is a big risk voters look past that and focus on Biden’s record especially if he has no meaningful achievements to his name
Don't insult both my intelligence and yours by pretending you don't know about this.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1440722792551370761?s=21
This hateful use of the term 'woke' is so awful. It describes those using it far more than it does the target of their opprobrium.
But I am also quite sure that several of the other CPTPP countries would. Australia is the most obvious, but I think several others won't want China in the room...
I rather think that China will use opposition to Taiwan's accession as a litmus test - if you come out against it, you are a "Friend". If you don't try and block it or are in favour - you are "Hostile".
My guess is that the face saving formula all round will be to put both Taiwan and China's applications in a folder marked "No Further Action In Our Lifetimes".
The world can't stop turning around just because the Daily Mail wishes it to.
It was extraordinary that he returned just after the Mosque massacre in Spring 2019 and while laying flowers at the Mosque which was very close to his previous workplace he collapsed and was rushed into Christchurch A & E
The terrors of 2011 had been ignited and he shows little sign of recovery today despite extensive treatment
Your words are very greatly and emotionally appreciated and, so there is no doubt, I love NZ with all my heart and soul and will not criticize it other than to hope and believe it will take the sensible path with China
Public Blogging dot com. Funded by general taxation.
You really need to up your game; you’re increasingly resembling a booze-addled sub-editor on the Daily Express who spends all day interviewing his typewriter.
"Prime Minister Johnson is delighted to be meeting Chinese President Tsai Ing-wen" would be the ultimate troll to Beijing.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58639602
I’m optimistic that we can activate the UK’s AI potential. To truly excel, it should focus on areas of applied scientific research, eg life sci and cyber, where it has world-leading capabilities.
https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1440733416509493263?s=20
I did have to chuckle that people actually in the biz seem generally very positive, and they get a quote from an anthropologist, with a background in Religious Studies, who witters about Brexit and exceptionalism (just because we have been exceptional in the recent past).
Now who do I listen to the COO of Deepmind or an somebody who has zero technical knowledge of AI / ML......
As in, "we are joining the CPTPP at some stage. We are just not tsai Ing-wen."
Maybe log off, sober up and have a nice warm bath and an early night?