Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
That's true, but this time last year would you have been ok with the thought that in a years time the question would be how or when Ukraine would liberate the territory that it hasn't liberated yet?
Rather than whether Russia is going to be able to still push on to take even more land.
The fact that Russia is being purely defensive and stretched at that is a good sign.
Russia is depleting it's forces and has fewer and fewer stockpiled Cold War machines to add to the mix.
Ukraine hasn't even got it's F16s yet. It's forces are strengthening not weakening.
This war is currently ratcheting one way. Long may that continue.
The F16s thing is really odd. I really don’t get why there’s reluctance on supplying them. First flown in 1974, just about the most prevalent fighter jet worldwide, it’s hardly some cutting edge new generation super-weapon.
It looks incredibly like a NATO fighter raiding into Russian soil. The room for serious misunderstandings is multiplied scarily. And there is an argument about how useful they will be when both sides seem to have seriously effective anti aircraft tech.
I don’t see why that’s anymore the case than MiGs and SUs raiding Ukrainian soil daily, when they’re not trying to spray jet fuel in American drones in the Black Sea or buzz Swedish jets in their airspace. And for that matter several NATO members themselves using former Soviet aircraft.
It’s this weird asymmetric fear of provocation that is frankly baffling. Let Russia act like a complete c*nt, but pussyfoot around just in case we make them a bit cross.
The US are providing hundreds of thousands of rounds of cluster bombs which are ripping Russian soldiers to pieces. We supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles and anti tank weaponry which has proven deadly. I don't think anyone is concerned about the Russians being cross. But there is a difference between that and having Russia believe NATO is directly attacking them.
Are they really that stupid?
Oh f*** yes. And they have a leader who thinks he has very, very little to lose.
Seriously, they’re not going to confuse an old f16 (which they know Ukraine has been supplied) with a NATO attack,
Who is "they" in this scenario? President Putin or some hungover major faced with a 1980s era alarm? We know in the past we have been saved by Russian officers overriding their systems. What happens next time?
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
Given we've only had Blair in between, it's not a very useful comparison.
Who would you consider the most right-wing Conservative elected - the list is Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson? I discount May because she never won a majority - all the others did at least once.
You think Blair is the most left wing PM since Wilson? Bold statement.
How do we define left? Tax? Spend? Redistribution?
Is the share of taxation overall higher or lower now than when Blair left office? Or when Brown did?
Is spending on redistribution/"social protection" higher or lower now than when Blair left office? Or when Brown did?
No, we've had only two Labour leaders elected into office since Attlee - Wilson and Blair. I don't think it's much of an argument to suggest Wilson was to the left of Blair.
It isn't easy to define "Left" and "Right" as you say. Blair in the 2000s would have been quite happy in Owen's SDP in the mid-80s.
As for the Conservatives, Heath was elected on a much more radical manifesto than Thatcher's in 1979. I'm no Tory so it's not easy for me to say but I'd put Cameron, Major and to an extent Johnson more on the one nation side of the fence.
The truth is radical manifestos rarely win - 1945 was exceptional so we're looking at "Selsdon Man" in 1970 as the last radical manifesto to win office - the 1983 Conservative manifesto was also radical but this was about re-election not winning power in the first place.
You could again argue only Heath, Thatcher and Cameron have won power from opposition since 1970 on the Conservative side while Major and Johnson won re-election as Conservative governments.
Yes I get that only Blair has won election for Labour in decades, but that doesn't make Blair automatically the most left wing PM in that time.
The problem is that the Tories have ceased to be the pro market economy party. They're just another tax and spend party now.
In the past the Tories were the party of aspiration, enterprise and business. Today the Tories are a party primarily for people who aren't in the workforce and who get substantial welfare instead.
So under the Tories taxes and welfare have both risen now since Labour left office. Only welfare isn't aimed at the poor or needy anymore, but it's redistribution just the same!
Higher taxes and higher redistribution today than under Blair. What else to call that other than left wing?
If it's any consolation to you (which it won't be), the irony is the Social Democrats won in the end. Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams would be broadly content with much of what has happened since the 80s (not leaving the EU of course).
You could very well argue the Conservatives and Labour are basically two high tax-and-spend social democratic parties who take turns in office but in and of themselves change little (the famous Simpsons vignette of Jack Johnson vs John Jackson springs to mind as do any other forms of Butskellism).
Radical socialist policies as represented by Corbyn were decisively rejected in 2019 as they were under Foot in 1983 - Attlee's victory in 1945 stands as the exception and those were unique circumstances.
On the Conservative side, I can appreciate your frustration classic free market liberal ideas have seemingly been rejected by the current Conservative incarnation in favour of an interventionism which would have delighted Heseltine, Prior and Gilmour. The Wets won as well as the SDP - the "soggy centre" is now the quagmire in which political careers sink slowly.
The trouble is, Truss tried to reset the agenda but was beaten down (one can argue about the theory but the implementation was shambolic). IF there's a way forward for the free marketeers it has to be to take on ALL aspects of State spending including the Triple Lock, NHS, Education and Defence. The sacred cows need to be slaughtered to make a real difference but I hear no Conservative even pretending to offer a smaller State solution beyond tinkering at the edges.
To bw fair, Thatcher wasn't afraid to raise taxes and cut spending in the short term to get the finances back on track - neither Hunt nor Reeves have any stomach for tax rises so it's back to borrowing and kicking the debt can down the road.
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
Given we've only had Blair in between, it's not a very useful comparison.
Who would you consider the most right-wing Conservative elected - the list is Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson? I discount May because she never won a majority - all the others did at least once.
You think Blair is the most left wing PM since Wilson? Bold statement.
How do we define left? Tax? Spend? Redistribution?
Is the share of taxation overall higher or lower now than when Blair left office? Or when Brown did?
Is spending on redistribution/"social protection" higher or lower now than when Blair left office? Or when Brown did?
No, we've had only two Labour leaders elected into office since Attlee - Wilson and Blair. I don't think it's much of an argument to suggest Wilson was to the left of Blair.
It isn't easy to define "Left" and "Right" as you say. Blair in the 2000s would have been quite happy in Owen's SDP in the mid-80s.
As for the Conservatives, Heath was elected on a much more radical manifesto than Thatcher's in 1979. I'm no Tory so it's not easy for me to say but I'd put Cameron, Major and to an extent Johnson more on the one nation side of the fence.
The truth is radical manifestos rarely win - 1945 was exceptional so we're looking at "Selsdon Man" in 1970 as the last radical manifesto to win office - the 1983 Conservative manifesto was also radical but this was about re-election not winning power in the first place.
You could again argue only Heath, Thatcher and Cameron have won power from opposition since 1970 on the Conservative side while Major and Johnson won re-election as Conservative governments.
Yes I get that only Blair has won election for Labour in decades, but that doesn't make Blair automatically the most left wing PM in that time.
The problem is that the Tories have ceased to be the pro market economy party. They're just another tax and spend party now.
In the past the Tories were the party of aspiration, enterprise and business. Today the Tories are a party primarily for people who aren't in the workforce and who get substantial welfare instead.
So under the Tories taxes and welfare have both risen now since Labour left office. Only welfare isn't aimed at the poor or needy anymore, but it's redistribution just the same!
Higher taxes and higher redistribution today than under Blair. What else to call that other than left wing?
So, Labour are the party of hard work and enterprise, and the Tories are the party of idle layabouts. Don’t tell the Mail, Express or Telegraph!
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
Today's Telegraph podcast was talking about the comments of a Russian commander on telegram whose battalion (or brigade or something) had been defeated at Urozhaine, and was complaining that no reserves had been sent.
Now this could just be the usual grumbling of troops at the front, plus a bit of arse-covering to excuse the fact that they'd been defeated, but the positive interpretation is that the Russians don't have much reserves left and are approaching a breaking point.
Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
That's true, but this time last year would you have been ok with the thought that in a years time the question would be how or when Ukraine would liberate the territory that it hasn't liberated yet?
Rather than whether Russia is going to be able to still push on to take even more land.
The fact that Russia is being purely defensive and stretched at that is a good sign.
Russia is depleting it's forces and has fewer and fewer stockpiled Cold War machines to add to the mix.
Ukraine hasn't even got it's F16s yet. It's forces are strengthening not weakening.
This war is currently ratcheting one way. Long may that continue.
The F16s thing is really odd. I really don’t get why there’s reluctance on supplying them. First flown in 1974, just about the most prevalent fighter jet worldwide, it’s hardly some cutting edge new generation super-weapon.
It takes a lot of time to learn to fly such a plane, and even longer to learn how to maintain them.
Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
That's true, but this time last year would you have been ok with the thought that in a years time the question would be how or when Ukraine would liberate the territory that it hasn't liberated yet?
Rather than whether Russia is going to be able to still push on to take even more land.
The fact that Russia is being purely defensive and stretched at that is a good sign.
Russia is depleting it's forces and has fewer and fewer stockpiled Cold War machines to add to the mix.
Ukraine hasn't even got it's F16s yet. It's forces are strengthening not weakening.
This war is currently ratcheting one way. Long may that continue.
The F16s thing is really odd. I really don’t get why there’s reluctance on supplying them. First flown in 1974, just about the most prevalent fighter jet worldwide, it’s hardly some cutting edge new generation super-weapon.
It looks incredibly like a NATO fighter raiding into Russian soil. The room for serious misunderstandings is multiplied scarily. And there is an argument about how useful they will be when both sides seem to have seriously effective anti aircraft tech.
I don’t see why that’s anymore the case than MiGs and SUs raiding Ukrainian soil daily, when they’re not trying to spray jet fuel in American drones in the Black Sea or buzz Swedish jets in their airspace. And for that matter several NATO members themselves using former Soviet aircraft.
It’s this weird asymmetric fear of provocation that is frankly baffling. Let Russia act like a complete c*nt, but pussyfoot around just in case we make them a bit cross.
The US are providing hundreds of thousands of rounds of cluster bombs which are ripping Russian soldiers to pieces. We supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles and anti tank weaponry which has proven deadly. I don't think anyone is concerned about the Russians being cross. But there is a difference between that and having Russia believe NATO is directly attacking them.
Are they really that stupid?
Oh f*** yes. And they have a leader who thinks he has very, very little to lose.
Seriously, they’re not going to confuse an old f16 (which they know Ukraine has been supplied) with a NATO attack,
Who is "they" in this scenario? President Putin or some hungover major faced with a 1980s era alarm? We know in the past we have been saved by Russian officers overriding their systems. What happens next time?
Turkey actually shot down a Russian warplane over Syria. Nothing happened.
Ukrainian jets flying over Ukraine? They might get shot down. They’re not starting WW3.
Then let’s look at the other lot.
Russia shot down a civilian airliner killing all passengers (MH370). Nothing happened.
Russia regularly sends its planes into NATO airspace in the Baltic and Black sea. Nothing happens.
Russia used radiological weapons in the UK (Litvinenko) then a few years later used chemical weapons and killed an innocent civilian. Nothing happened.
The thugs have been literally getting away with murder for decades, and people want to keep letting them do it.
And let’s not forget America battled with MiGs throughout Vietnam, sometimes manned with Soviet “trainers”. They battled with them in Iraq, twice. Neither time did they think “oh is this Russians?”
The Sweep and Force of Section Three https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election...
Law article by Republican lawyers - members of the Federalist Society.
On a Ukraine sidenote, Youtube have closed down Scott Ritter's channel, for "hate speech".
They have previously hit a number of Ukraine war reporting vloggers for 'graphic' footage, so most of the Ukraine war vloggers have second platforms, which may be Patreon (though they have also demonitised a couple), Telegram or even one self-owned site.
Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
That's true, but this time last year would you have been ok with the thought that in a years time the question would be how or when Ukraine would liberate the territory that it hasn't liberated yet?
Rather than whether Russia is going to be able to still push on to take even more land.
The fact that Russia is being purely defensive and stretched at that is a good sign.
Russia is depleting it's forces and has fewer and fewer stockpiled Cold War machines to add to the mix.
Ukraine hasn't even got it's F16s yet. It's forces are strengthening not weakening.
This war is currently ratcheting one way. Long may that continue.
The F16s thing is really odd. I really don’t get why there’s reluctance on supplying them. First flown in 1974, just about the most prevalent fighter jet worldwide, it’s hardly some cutting edge new generation super-weapon.
It looks incredibly like a NATO fighter raiding into Russian soil. The room for serious misunderstandings is multiplied scarily. And there is an argument about how useful they will be when both sides seem to have seriously effective anti aircraft tech.
I don’t see why that’s anymore the case than MiGs and SUs raiding Ukrainian soil daily, when they’re not trying to spray jet fuel in American drones in the Black Sea or buzz Swedish jets in their airspace. And for that matter several NATO members themselves using former Soviet aircraft.
It’s this weird asymmetric fear of provocation that is frankly baffling. Let Russia act like a complete c*nt, but pussyfoot around just in case we make them a bit cross.
The US are providing hundreds of thousands of rounds of cluster bombs which are ripping Russian soldiers to pieces. We supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles and anti tank weaponry which has proven deadly. I don't think anyone is concerned about the Russians being cross. But there is a difference between that and having Russia believe NATO is directly attacking them.
Are they really that stupid?
Oh f*** yes. And they have a leader who thinks he has very, very little to lose.
Seriously, they’re not going to confuse an old f16 (which they know Ukraine has been supplied) with a NATO attack,
Who is "they" in this scenario? President Putin or some hungover major faced with a 1980s era alarm? We know in the past we have been saved by Russian officers overriding their systems. What happens next time?
Turkey actually shot down a Russian warplane over Syria. Nothing happened.
Ukrainian jets flying over Ukraine? They might get shot down. They’re not starting WW3.
Then let’s look at the other lot.
Russia shot down a civilian airliner killing all passengers (MH370). Nothing happened.
Russia regularly sends its planes into NATO airspace in the Baltic and Black sea. Nothing happens.
Russia used radiological weapons in the UK (Litvinenko) then a few years later used chemical weapons and killed an innocent civilian. Nothing happened.
The thugs have been literally getting away with murder for decades, and people want to keep letting them do it.
And let’s not forget America battled with MiGs throughout Vietnam, sometimes manned with Soviet “trainers”. They battled with them in Iraq, twice. Neither time did they think “oh is this Russians?”
Turkey shooting down Russian jets in Syria is not likely to trigger a cold war-era alarm that Moscow is under attack. I share your moral outrage but also the caution of the experts.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
I've sometimes watched some hip'n'happening comedy and - similarly - thought "This is the modern lazy equivalent to 'My mother in law... '" jokes.
"The Daily Mail? Eh? Eh?" . "And what about Brexit? Eh? Eh?"
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
If they want to pursue crude politics, and believe what they are saying, then it should be in their *political* interest to let ULEZ continue and be the subsequent disaster caused by Labour they keep saying it is. Plus if they stop it will they have to stop all the other ULEZs in the other cities? And their emissions targets for 2028 may well be toast - which will open a flank to a 'Sunak & friends do not give a damn about the people's health' critique.
If on the other hand they think (as I do) ULEZ will impact relatively few, and will be a success ...
Question: which country in north-west Europe (and indeed also northern Europe as a whole) has the lowest suicide rate?
Iceland? Malta? Aland? The country with the strictest religious or legal constraints against suicide?
I would guess the UK. Though there may be wrinkles to this depending on how coroners record deaths.
Very sadly my father in law died by taking his own life a few years ago. There is no doubt for me or my family, based on the circumstances and his history, that that’s what he did. However, in large part because there was no note, his death was recorded as an open verdict. I was genuinely surprised. But regardless, he would not be counted in the stats.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that recorded rates may be very different from actual rates and different nation’s evidence threshold for decision may well differ quite a lot.
Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
That's true, but this time last year would you have been ok with the thought that in a years time the question would be how or when Ukraine would liberate the territory that it hasn't liberated yet?
Rather than whether Russia is going to be able to still push on to take even more land.
The fact that Russia is being purely defensive and stretched at that is a good sign.
Russia is depleting it's forces and has fewer and fewer stockpiled Cold War machines to add to the mix.
Ukraine hasn't even got it's F16s yet. It's forces are strengthening not weakening.
This war is currently ratcheting one way. Long may that continue.
The F16s thing is really odd. I really don’t get why there’s reluctance on supplying them. First flown in 1974, just about the most prevalent fighter jet worldwide, it’s hardly some cutting edge new generation super-weapon.
It looks incredibly like a NATO fighter raiding into Russian soil. The room for serious misunderstandings is multiplied scarily. And there is an argument about how useful they will be when both sides seem to have seriously effective anti aircraft tech.
I don’t see why that’s anymore the case than MiGs and SUs raiding Ukrainian soil daily, when they’re not trying to spray jet fuel in American drones in the Black Sea or buzz Swedish jets in their airspace. And for that matter several NATO members themselves using former Soviet aircraft.
It’s this weird asymmetric fear of provocation that is frankly baffling. Let Russia act like a complete c*nt, but pussyfoot around just in case we make them a bit cross.
The US are providing hundreds of thousands of rounds of cluster bombs which are ripping Russian soldiers to pieces. We supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles and anti tank weaponry which has proven deadly. I don't think anyone is concerned about the Russians being cross. But there is a difference between that and having Russia believe NATO is directly attacking them.
Are they really that stupid?
Oh f*** yes. And they have a leader who thinks he has very, very little to lose.
Seriously, they’re not going to confuse an old f16 (which they know Ukraine has been supplied) with a NATO attack,
Who is "they" in this scenario? President Putin or some hungover major faced with a 1980s era alarm? We know in the past we have been saved by Russian officers overriding their systems. What happens next time?
Turkey actually shot down a Russian warplane over Syria. Nothing happened.
Ukrainian jets flying over Ukraine? They might get shot down. They’re not starting WW3.
Then let’s look at the other lot.
Russia shot down a civilian airliner killing all passengers (MH370). Nothing happened.
Russia regularly sends its planes into NATO airspace in the Baltic and Black sea. Nothing happens.
Russia used radiological weapons in the UK (Litvinenko) then a few years later used chemical weapons and killed an innocent civilian. Nothing happened.
The thugs have been literally getting away with murder for decades, and people want to keep letting them do it.
And let’s not forget America battled with MiGs throughout Vietnam, sometimes manned with Soviet “trainers”. They battled with them in Iraq, twice. Neither time did they think “oh is this Russians?”
Turkey shooting down Russian jets in Syria is not likely to trigger a cold war-era alarm that Moscow is under attack. I share your moral outrage but also the caution of the experts.
Neither would Ukraine shooting down Russian jets in Ukraine.
The caution is largely political, I think. And some concern about the technology - the avionics, not the airframe.
Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
That's true, but this time last year would you have been ok with the thought that in a years time the question would be how or when Ukraine would liberate the territory that it hasn't liberated yet?
Rather than whether Russia is going to be able to still push on to take even more land.
The fact that Russia is being purely defensive and stretched at that is a good sign.
Russia is depleting it's forces and has fewer and fewer stockpiled Cold War machines to add to the mix.
Ukraine hasn't even got it's F16s yet. It's forces are strengthening not weakening.
This war is currently ratcheting one way. Long may that continue.
The F16s thing is really odd. I really don’t get why there’s reluctance on supplying them. First flown in 1974, just about the most prevalent fighter jet worldwide, it’s hardly some cutting edge new generation super-weapon.
It looks incredibly like a NATO fighter raiding into Russian soil. The room for serious misunderstandings is multiplied scarily. And there is an argument about how useful they will be when both sides seem to have seriously effective anti aircraft tech.
I don’t see why that’s anymore the case than MiGs and SUs raiding Ukrainian soil daily, when they’re not trying to spray jet fuel in American drones in the Black Sea or buzz Swedish jets in their airspace. And for that matter several NATO members themselves using former Soviet aircraft.
It’s this weird asymmetric fear of provocation that is frankly baffling. Let Russia act like a complete c*nt, but pussyfoot around just in case we make them a bit cross.
The US are providing hundreds of thousands of rounds of cluster bombs which are ripping Russian soldiers to pieces. We supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles and anti tank weaponry which has proven deadly. I don't think anyone is concerned about the Russians being cross. But there is a difference between that and having Russia believe NATO is directly attacking them.
Are they really that stupid?
Oh f*** yes. And they have a leader who thinks he has very, very little to lose.
Seriously, they’re not going to confuse an old f16 (which they know Ukraine has been supplied) with a NATO attack,
Who is "they" in this scenario? President Putin or some hungover major faced with a 1980s era alarm? We know in the past we have been saved by Russian officers overriding their systems. What happens next time?
Turkey actually shot down a Russian warplane over Syria. Nothing happened.
Ukrainian jets flying over Ukraine? They might get shot down. They’re not starting WW3.
Then let’s look at the other lot.
Russia shot down a civilian airliner killing all passengers (MH370). Nothing happened.
Russia regularly sends its planes into NATO airspace in the Baltic and Black sea. Nothing happens.
Russia used radiological weapons in the UK (Litvinenko) then a few years later used chemical weapons and killed an innocent civilian. Nothing happened.
The thugs have been literally getting away with murder for decades, and people want to keep letting them do it.
And let’s not forget America battled with MiGs throughout Vietnam, sometimes manned with Soviet “trainers”. They battled with them in Iraq, twice. Neither time did they think “oh is this Russians?”
Turkey shooting down Russian jets in Syria is not likely to trigger a cold war-era alarm that Moscow is under attack. I share your moral outrage but also the caution of the experts.
The West isn't allowing Ukraine to use any of its Western-supplied kit to hit any targets in Russia. This caused a bit of upset when the anti-Putin Russian group used a couple of bits of Western equipment in their incursions into Belgorod.
The chances of Ukrainian F-16 jets being used to attack targets in Russia is nil, unless that policy changes. This is actually one of the things that dilutes the effectiveness of the jets, because Russian jets frequently fire into Ukraine from Russian airspace, and SAM systems on Russian territory would make it hard for F-16 jets to operate in Ukrainian airspace.
It's possible that if that policy didn't apply that Western-equipped Ukrainian brigades would have captured Belgorod by now and Russia would be negotiating a territory swap with Ukraine to end the war. Or it could be that when those brigades reached Belgorod, Kyiv would have been nuked. But that is one of the asymmetries in the war that has enabled it to continue so long.
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
Given we've only had Blair in between, it's not a very useful comparison.
Who would you consider the most right-wing Conservative elected - the list is Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron and Johnson? I discount May because she never won a majority - all the others did at least once.
You think Blair is the most left wing PM since Wilson? Bold statement.
How do we define left? Tax? Spend? Redistribution?
Is the share of taxation overall higher or lower now than when Blair left office? Or when Brown did?
Is spending on redistribution/"social protection" higher or lower now than when Blair left office? Or when Brown did?
No, we've had only two Labour leaders elected into office since Attlee - Wilson and Blair. I don't think it's much of an argument to suggest Wilson was to the left of Blair.
It isn't easy to define "Left" and "Right" as you say. Blair in the 2000s would have been quite happy in Owen's SDP in the mid-80s.
As for the Conservatives, Heath was elected on a much more radical manifesto than Thatcher's in 1979. I'm no Tory so it's not easy for me to say but I'd put Cameron, Major and to an extent Johnson more on the one nation side of the fence.
The truth is radical manifestos rarely win - 1945 was exceptional so we're looking at "Selsdon Man" in 1970 as the last radical manifesto to win office - the 1983 Conservative manifesto was also radical but this was about re-election not winning power in the first place.
You could again argue only Heath, Thatcher and Cameron have won power from opposition since 1970 on the Conservative side while Major and Johnson won re-election as Conservative governments.
Yes I get that only Blair has won election for Labour in decades, but that doesn't make Blair automatically the most left wing PM in that time.
The problem is that the Tories have ceased to be the pro market economy party. They're just another tax and spend party now.
In the past the Tories were the party of aspiration, enterprise and business. Today the Tories are a party primarily for people who aren't in the workforce and who get substantial welfare instead.
So under the Tories taxes and welfare have both risen now since Labour left office. Only welfare isn't aimed at the poor or needy anymore, but it's redistribution just the same!
Higher taxes and higher redistribution today than under Blair. What else to call that other than left wing?
So, Labour are the party of hard work and enterprise, and the Tories are the party of idle layabouts. Don’t tell the Mail, Express or Telegraph!
I wouldn't go that far as to say the former.
Sadly there doesn't seem to be a party of hard work and enterprise anymore.
And the Telegraph and Express readers don't consider themselves idle layablouts despite not having worked in decades.
Question: which country in north-west Europe (and indeed also northern Europe as a whole) has the lowest suicide rate?
Iceland? Malta? Aland? The country with the strictest religious or legal constraints against suicide?
I would guess the UK. Though there may be wrinkles to this depending on how coroners record deaths.
Very sadly my father in law died by taking his own life a few years ago. There is no doubt for me or my family, based on the circumstances and his history, that that’s what he did. However, in large part because there was no note, his death was recorded as an open verdict. I was genuinely surprised. But regardless, he would not be counted in the stats.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that recorded rates may be very different from actual rates and different nation’s evidence threshold for decision may well differ quite a lot.
yes also the tolerance for suicide varies even amongst western european countries - not so long ago the Church of England had a law that suicides could only be buried at set hours and places . Catholic services for suicides still imply strongly what was done was wrong in the eyes of god
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
Fabbers is 73 now; surely he can only have one more parliament left?
Could be a critical moment for the Ukraine offensive. Get past this and there may well not be much stopping Ukraine reaching the Sea of Azov.
Staromlynivka ‼️
It seems that the battle for Staromlynivka has started. This is a very key point for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Please refer to previous tweets for more context. The Russians have understood it and they are calling on Shoigu to send reserves that he does not have... They cast the battle as decisive on the southern front.
It is possible that some Ukrainian units have completely bypassed Zavitne Bazhannya. ZB is very vulnerable because surrounded by the Mokri river north and east with the main road leading to Staromlynivka. Ukrainian artillery is reported already in the suburbs. https://twitter.com/PStyle0ne1/status/1692569512602693779?s=20
Would seem that the US has concluded that if they want Ukraine to push Russia further back they will actually have to make the transfer of F-16 jets happen.
It's entirely possible - indeed probable - that Ukraine will fail to cut the Russian forces in half and reach the coast.
But that doesn't mean the stories are in any way connected. The F16 decision has been a long time coming, and would have happened whether Ukraine was being knocked back on all fronts towards Kiev, or was already besieging Melitopol.
After 2-3 months of impasse and fairly brutal infantry actions by Ukraine with their armour out of play because of the minefields, there has been some evidence that things are finally starting to move in the last week. There are 2 scenarios, as I see it. The first is that having forced them to bludgeon their way through those minefields the Russians can now fall back and use those trenches and defensive positions to good effect. The second is that Russia has thrown its reserves into making a real fight of the minefields but now has little to cover any breakthroughs that occur.
Which one is right? I am genuinely not sure. I obviously hope for the latter but this has been a seriously hard summer for Ukraine and Russia have proven to be far more resilient than we hoped.
I don't think that 'impasse' is quite a fair description. AFAICS it is far closer to "as much preparation / softening up as considered necessary." I'd agree with the comment that it appears that things may be moving now.
Ukraine is not doing NATO style blitzkrieg because they are not equipped to do so, as they have been denied the ability to put in place the most basic building block - air supremacy - by the West. And Russia has had the time and space to build a defensive system due to delays of supply, also by the West.
And they have repeatedly stated that their strategy is dominated by husbanding resources, which seems fair and necessary given the above.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
On Parkinson, I find it difficult to get beyond that ultra creepy interview with Helen Mirren. Just hideous.
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
You think? I don't see him being more left wing than Brown or Callaghan to be honest. I accept he is playing his cards pretty close to his chest.
Brown or Callaghan never won a general election, so my point that Starmer will be the most leftwing elected PM since Harold Wilson stands (elected by the public not just MPs)
Yesterday an NPR host said that Japan and Korea had "decades" of testy relations. This is like saying that Mexico has had "decades" of difficult relations w the US—or China w Vietnam, or Poland w Russia... https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1692577998455685335
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
Question: which country in north-west Europe (and indeed also northern Europe as a whole) has the lowest suicide rate?
Iceland? Malta? Aland? The country with the strictest religious or legal constraints against suicide?
I would guess the UK. Though there may be wrinkles to this depending on how coroners record deaths.
Very sadly my father in law died by taking his own life a few years ago. There is no doubt for me or my family, based on the circumstances and his history, that that’s what he did. However, in large part because there was no note, his death was recorded as an open verdict. I was genuinely surprised. But regardless, he would not be counted in the stats.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that recorded rates may be very different from actual rates and different nation’s evidence threshold for decision may well differ quite a lot.
yes also the tolerance for suicide varies even amongst western european countries - not so long ago the Church of England had a law that suicides could only be buried at set hours and places . Catholic services for suicides still imply strongly what was done was wrong in the eyes of god
Interestingly he received a full Catholic funeral service with no caveats despite (a) the circumstances of his death - arrangements were being made prior to the verdict - and (b) the fact that he had converted to Judaism (though he had in his later years somewhat gravitated back to the church). The priest even read the Kaddish at the graveside.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
If they want to pursue crude politics, and believe what they are saying, then it should be in their *political* interest to let ULEZ continue and be the subsequent disaster caused by Labour they keep saying it is. Plus if they stop it will they have to stop all the other ULEZs in the other cities? And their emissions targets for 2028 may well be toast - which will open a flank to a 'Sunak & friends do not give a damn about the people's health' critique.
If on the other hand they think (as I do) ULEZ will impact relatively few, and will be a success ...
Hmm.
It would be a grevious miscalculation, which is not to say they won’t do it. Yes, Khan has handled the implementation and communications clumsily, but the expansion of ULEZ is ultimately of unequivocal benefit to Londoners.
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
Well considering this present government is the most leftwing since Harold Wilson (even if the PM wasn't elected) that's not exactly a challenge.
Even Brown had a higher top rate income tax rate than this government let alone Wilson, Sunak is keeping a lid on public sector pay and taking a tougher line on immigration than Labour did
On the Letby case, this is where we’re really missing Cyclefree. She’d skewer the box-ticking arse-covering hospital management expertly. Frankly, they all need to be dismissed instantly, and quite possibly some of them should be going to jail.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
Ands indeed the World at War series, and the equivalent on the Great War (I forget the name). TV was shit in the 1970s? Really?
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
The Hong Kong model…? Hmmm, how well has that model turned out in Hong Kong?
Well the handover happened peacefully, China did not invade.
All Argentine leaders want the Falklands to become Argentine ultimately but Milei makes clear he favours diplomacy with the British and the Hong Kong model not another Falklands War recognising we won the last one. Crucially he also says any change would have to have Falkland Islanders consent too
On the Letby case, this is where we’re really missing Cyclefree. She’d skewer the box-ticking arse-covering hospital management expertly. Frankly, they all need to be dismissed instantly, and quite possibly some of them should be going to jail.
On the face of it from what I’ve seen, their decisions led to deaths. I don’t know the legalities, but they are certainly morally culpable in my book.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
I remember him attempting to interview James Cagney who, I think, he had been after for years. Very fortunately Cagney appeared with his old friend, the actor Pat O'brien, a bit of a stage Irish-American, but he carried the interview making up for Cagney who was, to say the least, less than loquacious. That must have been some time ago...
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
You think? I don't see him being more left wing than Brown or Callaghan to be honest. I accept he is playing his cards pretty close to his chest.
Brown or Callaghan never won a general election, so my point that Starmer will be the most leftwing elected PM since Harold Wilson stands (elected by the public not just MPs)
A Starmer government will be basically how a second term of Gordon Brown would have been had he won the 2010 general election
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
If they want to pursue crude politics, and believe what they are saying, then it should be in their *political* interest to let ULEZ continue and be the subsequent disaster caused by Labour they keep saying it is. Plus if they stop it will they have to stop all the other ULEZs in the other cities? And their emissions targets for 2028 may well be toast - which will open a flank to a 'Sunak & friends do not give a damn about the people's health' critique.
If on the other hand they think (as I do) ULEZ will impact relatively few, and will be a success ...
Hmm.
Interesting precedent from Manchester where their equivalent system has already been blocked, and the Manchester region were told to think again.
And of course they did and came back with a better alternative which doesn't involve charges ... And is expected to bring down emissions by more and sooner than the original proposal.
"And their emissions targets for 2028 may well be toast" ... If you want to target emissions them this is a pretty crappy way to do it. A polluting vehicle driving around all day every day paying the same emissions charge as one only doing a few miles doesn't really target emissions well.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
Ands indeed the World at War series, and the equivalent on the Great War (I forget the name). TV was shit in the 1970s? Really?
First 3 minutes of the World at War series up to and including the credits must be right up there with the most powerful TV of all time. Absolutely horrifying and gripping.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
If they want to pursue crude politics, and believe what they are saying, then it should be in their *political* interest to let ULEZ continue and be the subsequent disaster caused by Labour they keep saying it is. Plus if they stop it will they have to stop all the other ULEZs in the other cities? And their emissions targets for 2028 may well be toast - which will open a flank to a 'Sunak & friends do not give a damn about the people's health' critique.
If on the other hand they think (as I do) ULEZ will impact relatively few, and will be a success ...
Hmm.
Also: what is the point of devolution if they do this? Everything has to be measured against some notional norm which happens to be what HMG(UK) wants.
I recall the time when the Scottish Government smoothed out tax rate steps a little and had higher income people pay a bit more and lower in come peoplke pay a bit less.
HMG very loudly gave Services officers and higher NCOs, billeted in Scotland, extra pay to "compensate".
What it did not do was to give the ORs, billeted in rUK, extra pay to "compensate".
This is very similar.
If I were Khan, I'd implement a much more radical decision and dare HMG(rUK) to shut down the London Assembly.
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
Well considering this present government is the most leftwing since Harold Wilson (even if the PM wasn't elected) that's not exactly a challenge.
Even Brown had a higher top rate income tax rate than this government let alone Wilson, Sunak is keeping a lid on public sector pay and taking a tougher line on immigration than Labour did
I don't know when you're going to understand this, if ever, but income tax isn't the only tax that exists, let alone top rate.
Indeed someone on say £110k now may be facing a higher real rate of tax now than they would have under Brown.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
Ands indeed the World at War series, and the equivalent on the Great War (I forget the name). TV was shit in the 1970s? Really?
The Great War in fact, narrated by Michael Redgrave, though it was 1960s; often repeated I imagine. It was quite influential on the World at War I think. The interviews with participants (a bloody distinguished list if you check Wiki) were spliced into a more recent programme.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
Interested to see rent-a-gob Michael Fabricant telling his local Police to "turn a blind eye" to pubs (and presumably other places) selling alcohol early on Sunday morning in advance of the World Cup Final.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
Ands indeed the World at War series, and the equivalent on the Great War (I forget the name). TV was shit in the 1970s? Really?
The Great War in fact narrated by Michael Redgrave, though it was 1960s; often repeated I imagine. It was quite inflential on the World at War I think. The interviews with participants (a bloody distinguished list if you check Wiki) were spliced into a more recent programme.
That's the one, with the actual participants being interviewed. Thanks for correcting the date. 1964 on checking. Curious to think it was closer to the Sarajevo assassination than to today.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the Letby case, this is where we’re really missing Cyclefree. She’d skewer the box-ticking arse-covering hospital management expertly. Frankly, they all need to be dismissed instantly, and quite possibly some of them should be going to jail.
Not sure there's anything to add to your 6 word analysis (4 if hyphenated counts as one).
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
I don't think the holiday homes is a good counter-example.
Someone driving across regions is as you say using the roads in multiple regions, all funded via their own taxation. So if they're further taxed in just one for a journey that took place in multiple regions, then that's not really proportionate.
But that doesn't really apply with holiday homes. A holiday home in say Cornwall isn't really affecting any other county, unlike a tax on roads that applies to routes both coming and going outside of that area.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
I just realised that the Falklands War was closer in time to WW2 than it is to now
Jesus. Also I spent much of my adult life thinking how bizarre it would be to be in the 21 century, and here we are closing in on 25%.
And I knew one of my grandfathers well, and if you had said to him when he was 10 That's like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic he would have been mystified, because he was 10 in 1910.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
We're talking about the notion that the boroughs and counties just outside ULEZ have some special rights in the matter of ULEZ, though. The metric used to penalise drivers in London is a separate matter. Where they live is irrelevant - it could be as well Basingstoke as Epping. The only thing that counts is whether they come into London or not. Rather like your Cornish roads.
The actual primary pollution detriment is to London and Londoners, and that is Mr Khan's job. The penalties impsoed on cars etc are secondary to that.
Question: which country in north-west Europe (and indeed also northern Europe as a whole) has the lowest suicide rate?
Iceland? Malta? Aland? The country with the strictest religious or legal constraints against suicide?
I would guess the UK. Though there may be wrinkles to this depending on how coroners record deaths.
Very sadly my father in law died by taking his own life a few years ago. There is no doubt for me or my family, based on the circumstances and his history, that that’s what he did. However, in large part because there was no note, his death was recorded as an open verdict. I was genuinely surprised. But regardless, he would not be counted in the stats.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that recorded rates may be very different from actual rates and different nation’s evidence threshold for decision may well differ quite a lot.
From memory, English suicide stats are perennially under-recorded. For various reasons (attempt to preserve the shattered dreams of the family, societal pressures, insurance) coroners avoid it if an open or other verdict is possible. I think even cases where people have hung themselves have been recorded as "open", especially if there is no note and signs of a struggle (taken to be a last-minute recantation). Whether insurers pay out on suicides is a nice question: some didn't (the insured should not induce the loss), some do, especially if there are more than 2? years since the policy was taken out.
Mary Harrington on transhumanism (oversimplification: the morality of changing the body to other than its nominal state) identifies the invention of oral contraception in the 50's as the start of the debate. I'd date it to 1959/1960/1961: the legalisation of suicide and gambling in E&W. Prior to that point suicide was a crime and those who survived it were arrested and punished. We forget from our comfortable perches how unimaginably cruel we can be, even when the news provides daily reminders
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Mr Gove is a double agent for Meibion Glyndŵr? I think both he and MG would be surprised by that notion.
I hesitate to understand the point that is made by this poll. Can we have one where we work out how well Labour would do under Hugh Gaitskell? How about John McDonnell (in my headcanon he would have won in 2017)?
How about Robocop? "We polled 25,153 voters via MRP and the result was Alex Murphy (Lab) 35%, Jon Pertwee (Con) 33%, and Pamela Lillian Isley (Green) 25%".
The point is obvious. Those on the Labour Left grumbling about the latest triangulation from PM-in-waiting Keir Starmer need to give their head a wobble and ask themselves if they really would prefer eternal Tory government to a Labour government with a centrist PM?
Yes. I agree. Starmer is nailing it as regards winning the election and I'm on board with it. We just have to remove the Cons. But on the left we can dream of a Labour leader *of* the left who is brighter and more contemporary than Jeremy Corbyn. I know we can because I do!
Even Starmer would be the most leftwing elected PM we have had since Harold Wilson
You think? I don't see him being more left wing than Brown or Callaghan to be honest. I accept he is playing his cards pretty close to his chest.
Brown or Callaghan never won a general election, so my point that Starmer will be the most leftwing elected PM since Harold Wilson stands (elected by the public not just MPs)
A Starmer government will be basically how a second term of Gordon Brown would have been had he won the 2010 general election
That's an interesting analysis. I'll be keen to see if it works out that way. One of Gordon's ideas that I liked (others differed) was for a National Care Service to look after chronic cases. If Starmer brings that in *successfully*, even in part, I shall have to reappraise him.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Still thinking about it. No, that can't work, because it's more than housing policy. There are true additional costs that are born eby the holiday home areas.
An example: an area has a school. Then half the houses get bought by holiday home owners. Half trhe school roll vanishes as the people have to move out. The school has to operate at less than optimum efficiency, merge, whatever.
Question: which country in north-west Europe (and indeed also northern Europe as a whole) has the lowest suicide rate?
Iceland? Malta? Aland? The country with the strictest religious or legal constraints against suicide?
I would guess the UK. Though there may be wrinkles to this depending on how coroners record deaths.
Very sadly my father in law died by taking his own life a few years ago. There is no doubt for me or my family, based on the circumstances and his history, that that’s what he did. However, in large part because there was no note, his death was recorded as an open verdict. I was genuinely surprised. But regardless, he would not be counted in the stats.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that recorded rates may be very different from actual rates and different nation’s evidence threshold for decision may well differ quite a lot.
From memory, English suicide stats are perennially under-recorded. For various reasons (attempt to preserve the shattered dreams of the family, societal pressures, insurance) coroners avoid it if an open or other verdict is possible. I think even cases where people have hung themselves have been recorded as "open", especially if there is no note and signs of a struggle (taken to be a last-minute recantation). Whether insurers pay out on suicides is a nice question: some didn't (the insured should not induce the loss), some do, especially if there are more than 2? years since the policy was taken out.
Mary Harrington on transhumanism (oversimplification: the morality of changing the body to other than its nominal state) identifies the invention of oral contraception in the 50's as the start of the debate. I'd date it to 1959/1960/1961: the legalisation of suicide and gambling in E&W. Prior to that point suicide was a crime and those who survived it were arrested and punished. We forget from our comfortable perches how unimaginably cruel we can be, even when the news provides daily reminders
I seem to recollect a suicide more than 13 months after the policy was taken out was paid out on when I worked for a life assurance company.
Macabre thought: I wonder now many instances of 'murder for the insurance money, rigged to look like a suicide' resulted in a dead victim yet with no payout to the murderer.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
As far as I understand, instead of concentrating on charging a fee for driving on a day there, they're instead encouraging investment towards the most polluting vehicles with incentives to get them upgraded, including especially for example having upgraded the buses.
A bus driving around all day every day emits far more emissions than a car or van making a return journey does. Buses make up over 70% of emissions on some roads.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Still thinking about it. No, that can't work, because it's more than housing policy. There are true additional costs that are born eby the holiday home areas.
An example: an area has a school. Then half the houses get bought by holiday home owners. Half trhe school roll vanishes as the people have to move out. The school has to operate at less than optimum efficiency, merge, whatever.
It's not really a cost to a council to educate fewer kids, though.
I see Kane has scored on his debut for Bayern. Great to see a top class England player in the prime of his career playing for a top club in a foreign league. It's a rarity. Who was the last - Beckham?
There's Bellingham of course, but he is still in his youth and was brought through in Germany.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
We're talking about the notion that the boroughs and counties just outside ULEZ have some special rights in the matter of ULEZ, though. The metric used to penalise drivers in London is a separate matter. Where they live is irrelevant - it could be as well Basingstoke as Epping. The only thing that counts is whether they come into London or not. Rather like your Cornish roads.
The actual primary pollution detriment is to London and Londoners, and that is Mr Khan's job. The penalties impsoed on cars etc are secondary to that.
But if drivers driving through the outskirts of London aren't causing problems in London, eg because the emissions they emit are really very low in the grand scheme of things, yet they're the ones paying the charge - then is that reasonable?
Or should the vehicles which are driving around all day every day in London be targeted for upgrade instead, which will lower emissions far more and much sooner?
A microscopic surgery can result in a better outcome with fewer side effects than just taking a stab at an issue with a blunt instrument.
I just realised that the Falklands War was closer in time to WW2 than it is to now
My earliest memories are from that year, although not the Falklands War itself.
I distinctly remember sitting in the car while Mrs P. popped in to pick up a Chinese takeaway and hearing on the radio that the General Belgrano had been sunk. Funny how some events stick in the memory.
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
Given that Argentina was relying on Chinese vaccines, is 'scepticism' really a disqualifying attitude to have?
Your continual advocacy of Putinists around the globe is obvious, ridiculous . . . and totally predictable.
As is your calling everyone whom you dislike a Putinist.
At the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Milei entered the Palace of the Argentine National Congress with a Ukrainian flag, showing his position towards the conflict.[130]
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Still thinking about it. No, that can't work, because it's more than housing policy. There are true additional costs that are born eby the holiday home areas.
An example: an area has a school. Then half the houses get bought by holiday home owners. Half trhe school roll vanishes as the people have to move out. The school has to operate at less than optimum efficiency, merge, whatever.
It's not really a cost to a council to educate fewer kids, though.
The teacher and the building cost the same whether there is 1 or 20 kids.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
As far as I understand, instead of concentrating on charging a fee for driving on a day there, they're instead encouraging investment towards the most polluting vehicles with incentives to get them upgraded, including especially for example having upgraded the buses.
A bus driving around all day every day emits far more emissions than a car or van making a return journey does. Buses make up over 70% of emissions on some roads.
So, they plan to ask for grants from Whitehall instead of raising money from Manchester. (And to ban national coach companies from serving the city.) It makes sense to me that such a plan would be both faster and more popular in Manchester. Of course, it ultimately means committing funds that could have gone to something else.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
With respect to your last paragraph, that is precisely what the ulez is designed to do. And it works, as I can attest, having swapped my car for a less polluting one when it was extended to my area.
On the Letby case, this is where we’re really missing Cyclefree. She’d skewer the box-ticking arse-covering hospital management expertly. Frankly, they all need to be dismissed instantly, and quite possibly some of them should be going to jail.
Suspended and investigated, you mean.
We know what happens when the sanction comes without that first.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Still thinking about it. No, that can't work, because it's more than housing policy. There are true additional costs that are born eby the holiday home areas.
An example: an area has a school. Then half the houses get bought by holiday home owners. Half trhe school roll vanishes as the people have to move out. The school has to operate at less than optimum efficiency, merge, whatever.
It's not really a cost to a council to educate fewer kids, though.
The teacher and the building cost the same whether there is 1 or 20 kids.
In practice, in this kind of depopulation scenario, they consolidate schools. And rural depopulation, owing to economic and technological change, is the underlying phenomenon in places that have second homes. If there were enough jobs, people would pay for more housing.
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
Given that Argentina was relying on Chinese vaccines, is 'scepticism' really a disqualifying attitude to have?
Your continual advocacy of Putinists around the globe is obvious, ridiculous . . . and totally predictable.
As is your calling everyone whom you dislike a Putinist.
At the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Milei entered the Palace of the Argentine National Congress with a Ukrainian flag, showing his position towards the conflict.[130]
As I pointed out earlier, support for UKR in itself does NOT mean that a politico is NOT a practicing Putinist.
What IS proof, is their hyper-populism combined with disrespect for constitutional restraints and democratic norms.
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
Given that Argentina was relying on Chinese vaccines, is 'scepticism' really a disqualifying attitude to have?
Your continual advocacy of Putinists around the globe is obvious, ridiculous . . . and totally predictable.
As is your calling everyone whom you dislike a Putinist.
At the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Milei entered the Palace of the Argentine National Congress with a Ukrainian flag, showing his position towards the conflict.[130]
As I pointed out earlier, support for UKR in itself does NOT mean that a politico is NOT a practicing Putinist.
What IS proof, is their hyper-populism combined with disrespect for constitutional restraints and democratic norms.
The current government in Argentina has been prevaricating back and forth on the Ukraine conflict, opposing sanctions and calling for a "deal" which is the Putinist line to mean that Ukraine must give up land for peace.
It is the current government in Argentina that is far more Putinist and hopefully its successor will be an improvement.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Revenue from second homes should be used to build affordable housing for local residents.
Looking at flats in the same building as me, in an unfashionable part of East London, to estimate what my likely rental increase this year will be.
I was paying £2100pcm for a three bed flat in 2019; an identical flat in the same building is being advertised for £4100pcm today.
Come south of the river. Where we live in SE14, which I would imagine is far nicer and just as central as any unfashionable area of East London, you can rent a 5 bedroom house for £4k! Three bedroom flats for £2100 are available too. We moved from East to South East London in 2002, best move we ever made.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the councils with lots of second homes don't themselves lose anything in business rates because the money they collect from business rates is all passed on to central government anyway, to be pooled for all local authorities. And Is there really a dearth of pubs in Cornish villages? In fact holiday homes do bring in a lot of extra cash into local economies from outside that's spent on the likes of building renovation and property maintenance by relatively wealthy owners, in addition to the spending when they're in use. It's also a myth to imagine that second homes lie empty for most of the year, in practice if you own a home in a popular tourist area you'll find that you'll have a long list of friends queuing up to have holidays there at mates rates, and you may go further and let your home out on Air BnB or through local holiday letting agencies. If you're going to argue that second homes are to the detriment of local economies in areas with economies build around tourism, you might as well try making the same fallacious argument about local guesthouses and hotels being detrimental if they are using properties that could be used for housing.
On ULEZ, you're moving the goalposts. It's a tax which is justified on the grounds that it will change behaviour, by forcing people to change their vehicles. That's fair enough. But it will change behaviour regardless of whether Khan or Essex County Council keep the revenue from those driving from in Essex. If it were really there to fund health care arising from pollution, Khan should be passing the revenues on to the NHS in London (and Essex), which he's not doing.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
On the other had, the detriment is clearly to London and Londoners, with the health and associated social care costs (e.g. of people incapacitated earlier and more than they should be).
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
No, the detriment is not necessarily clearly to London and Londoners.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
As far as I understand, instead of concentrating on charging a fee for driving on a day there, they're instead encouraging investment towards the most polluting vehicles with incentives to get them upgraded, including especially for example having upgraded the buses.
A bus driving around all day every day emits far more emissions than a car or van making a return journey does. Buses make up over 70% of emissions on some roads.
So, they plan to ask for grants from Whitehall instead of raising money from Manchester. (And to ban national coach companies from serving the city.) It makes sense to me that such a plan would be both faster and more popular in Manchester. Of course, it ultimately means committing funds that could have gone to something else.
No.
No bans, and I don't believe extra finance either. As far as I understand they're using the already-available resources to target the problematic issues sooner, rather than just having a blanket policy that doesn't deal with the issues.
The prior scheme, like the proposed London ULEZ, would have targeted the entirety of Greater Manchester but the problems in air quality, like in London, are not the same across the whole area. The outskirts of Wigan don't have the same air issues as inner Manchester or inner Salford, and having such a blanket policy both causes unnecessary hardship in Wigan, while not fixing the problems in Manchester or Salford.
Instead of a blanket policy that doesn't work, targeting the areas where there are problems and the vehicles that are causing those emissions on those roads, the problem can be solved more and sooner.
Former President Donald J. Trump plans to upstage the first Republican primary debate on Wednesday by sitting for an online interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, according to multiple people briefed on the matter.
In the past 24 hours, Mr. Trump has told people close to him that he has made up his mind and will skip the debate in Milwaukee, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
.... and then pools the half it takes and passes it back to local authorities in the form of unhypothecated grant. So councils eventually get it all back collectively.
Don’t cha just love BBC radio 4 comedy. Just tuned in as saw a new show and was treated by the host and Spanish comedian mocking Brits in hackneyed terms, the best was the Spanish chap ranting about us not being able to pronounce Paella and Mallorca as he pronounces at the same time as not speaking with a perfect English accent whilst using English words. We are a truly evil nation.
Yay, now the Malawian comedian having a go, followed by an Aussie making the audience roar mocking King Charles. What an enormous pile of wank. Just turning off at the point that “white men” have been blamed for everything.
Sounds like a mirror image of 1970s TV. That was shit, too.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
Does that include landlords?
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
Given that Argentina was relying on Chinese vaccines, is 'scepticism' really a disqualifying attitude to have?
Your continual advocacy of Putinists around the globe is obvious, ridiculous . . . and totally predictable.
As is your calling everyone whom you dislike a Putinist.
At the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Milei entered the Palace of the Argentine National Congress with a Ukrainian flag, showing his position towards the conflict.[130]
As I pointed out earlier, support for UKR in itself does NOT mean that a politico is NOT a practicing Putinist.
What IS proof, is their hyper-populism combined with disrespect for constitutional restraints and democratic norms.
This is all so much projection. You're perfectly comfortable with politicians disrespecting constitutional restraints, violating democratic norms, and even serving Russian interests as long as their face fits.
FPT someone brought up the potential new Argentine Pres. has he made any pronouncements on the Falklands? Surely if you were Putin you would be chucking money at him to ramp it up to divert UK defence attention/spending/kit there and so reduce what’s coming at him in Ukraine? I’m too lazy to research it myself so if anyone knows it’s much appreciated.
He has said he supports self determination by the Falkland Islanders and diplomacy, he would actually be a better President for the UK than the current one.
The Kirchners and their party have been much more bellicose on the Falklands than Milei is and the Kirchners are also pro Putin
Thanks for the answer, although the Hong Kong model doesn’t bode well…
Milei is interesting. Described as “far right” but that moniker has been thrown around a bit loosely recently. He seems to be a bit of a Bolsonaro, combined with a smattering of Redwood and Dan Hannan. Not an ultra-nationalist. To me far right implies ethnic supremacism, which doesn’t seem to feature.
Argentina is one of those democracies with outsized political importance considering its diminutive economy and population. Like Greece, Serbia or New Zealand.
He’s the modern version of far right, all vaccine conspiracies and the like.
Given that Argentina was relying on Chinese vaccines, is 'scepticism' really a disqualifying attitude to have?
Your continual advocacy of Putinists around the globe is obvious, ridiculous . . . and totally predictable.
As is your calling everyone whom you dislike a Putinist.
At the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Milei entered the Palace of the Argentine National Congress with a Ukrainian flag, showing his position towards the conflict.[130]
As I pointed out earlier, support for UKR in itself does NOT mean that a politico is NOT a practicing Putinist.
What IS proof, is their hyper-populism combined with disrespect for constitutional restraints and democratic norms.
This is all so much projection. You're perfectly comfortable with politicians disrespecting constitutional restraints, violating democratic norms, and even serving Russian interests as long as their face fits.
The current regime in Argentina has been blatantly corrupt and done all of that. Which is how Milei has been able to gain popularity, by calling it out.
The next regime may not be any better, but its hard to see it being much worse.
I just realised that the Falklands War was closer in time to WW2 than it is to now
My earliest memories are from that year, although not the Falklands War itself.
It's strange how the mind works. When I hear mention of the Falklands War I don't think about Thatcher or the Taskforce or Goose Green or Prince Andrew or "Gotcha", I think about this guy I met at that exact time (in Coulsdon) who was amazing at Mick Jagger impressions. He'd have me incapacitated with it. Never laughed as much before or since. The sort of short vivid friendship that you can have at 21 but not in later life unless you're in the creative arts.
I am becoming less than impressed with islands being on fire. Hawaii setting itself on fire was a bit gamey for my taste. It is starting to feel confected.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
It's an interesting question. The more general issue is essentially this: what are the limits on the powers of one council to tax the residents of another council area in order to benefit only its own revenues?
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
The parallel I'm thinking of is business rates - where indeed central government takes a cut. Otherwise a lot of councils would have a way to outsource costs onto non-residents.
The business rates example is a good parallel with what should happen with second homes. Basically, all revenue from business rates across the country is currently pooled and then shared out across local authorities based on their population. That should happen with the extra revenues (above the normal rates of council tax) which councils choose to levy on the second homes in their area. So any decision to levy a penal council tax on second homes would then be driven solely by considerations of housing policy*, not whether the council could make a quick unaccountable buck.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
Revenue from second homes should be used to build affordable housing for local residents.
Yes but which local residents? I haven't a problem if the revenue from second homes is pooled and used to build affordable housing in areas where social housing is really needed. And that's not just in popular tourist resorts.
Former President Donald J. Trump plans to upstage the first Republican primary debate on Wednesday by sitting for an online interview with the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, according to multiple people briefed on the matter.
In the past 24 hours, Mr. Trump has told people close to him that he has made up his mind and will skip the debate in Milwaukee, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.
NY Times
He has to surrender for arrest in Georgia next week. Surrendering on the day of the debate solves multiple problems: gets him out of the debate and gives him something to moan about on social media..
Comments
You could very well argue the Conservatives and Labour are basically two high tax-and-spend social democratic parties who take turns in office but in and of themselves change little (the famous Simpsons vignette of Jack Johnson vs John Jackson springs to mind as do any other forms of Butskellism).
Radical socialist policies as represented by Corbyn were decisively rejected in 2019 as they were under Foot in 1983 - Attlee's victory in 1945 stands as the exception and those were unique circumstances.
On the Conservative side, I can appreciate your frustration classic free market liberal ideas have seemingly been rejected by the current Conservative incarnation in favour of an interventionism which would have delighted Heseltine, Prior and Gilmour. The Wets won as well as the SDP - the "soggy centre" is now the quagmire in which political careers sink slowly.
The trouble is, Truss tried to reset the agenda but was beaten down (one can argue about the theory but the implementation was shambolic). IF there's a way forward for the free marketeers it has to be to take on ALL aspects of State spending including the Triple Lock, NHS, Education and Defence. The sacred cows need to be slaughtered to make a real difference but I hear no Conservative even pretending to offer a smaller State solution beyond tinkering at the edges.
To bw fair, Thatcher wasn't afraid to raise taxes and cut spending in the short term to get the finances back on track - neither Hunt nor Reeves have any stomach for tax rises so it's back to borrowing and kicking the debt can down the road.
Now this could just be the usual grumbling of troops at the front, plus a bit of arse-covering to excuse the fact that they'd been defeated, but the positive interpretation is that the Russians don't have much reserves left and are approaching a breaking point.
Should have.
Ukrainian jets flying over Ukraine? They might get shot down. They’re not starting WW3.
Then let’s look at the other lot.
Russia shot down a civilian airliner killing all passengers (MH370). Nothing happened.
Russia regularly sends its planes into NATO airspace in the Baltic and Black sea. Nothing happens.
Russia used radiological weapons in the UK (Litvinenko) then a few years later used chemical weapons and killed an innocent civilian. Nothing happened.
The thugs have been literally getting away with murder for decades, and people want to keep letting them do it.
And let’s not forget America battled with MiGs throughout Vietnam, sometimes manned with Soviet “trainers”. They battled with them in Iraq, twice. Neither time did they think “oh is this Russians?”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.
First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election...
Law article by Republican lawyers - members of the Federalist Society.
They have previously hit a number of Ukraine war reporting vloggers for 'graphic' footage, so most of the Ukraine war vloggers have second platforms, which may be Patreon (though they have also demonitised a couple), Telegram or even one self-owned site.
"The Daily Mail? Eh? Eh?" . "And what about Brexit? Eh? Eh?"
There was the occasional exception, of course. Just as there is with R4 comedy.
Normally, the amendment to the Licensing Laws allowing for earlier opening this Sunday would have been whisked through Parliament but as the House is in recess, it's different.
I've never been a morning drinker - I know some are - night shift workers of course and some of those who frequent my local Spoons in the Barking Road are on the sauce at 8am. Now, I've no issue with a Spoons breakfast - it won't win any awards of course -and my local Turkish-owned cafe does a more than decent full English with the tv so I can watch the game there if I am so minded.
I'm not sure it's up to an MP to order the Police about - the wider question here is whether anyone enforces licensing laws on any Sunday (somehow I doubt it) so is this a de facto in lieu of a de jure change? For some, alcohol on a Sunday will continue to mean the Communion wine and for others it won't.
On a complete tangent, I would raise a glass to Sir Michael Parkinson - some of his interviews are just legendary for all there are those who claim 1970s tv was "shit". You can see how many entertainers struggle out of character - it really becomes a mask behind which you can hide.
The two Parkinson interviews which stick with me were like chalk and cheese - the first was with Jacob Bronofski in 1974. As a teenager, to hear of the grotesque inhumanity of the Holocaust and Auschwitz following on from the superb World at War episode and the timeless narration of Lawrence Olivier, left a lasting impression. The other was the interview with Sammy Davis Junior in 1983 when the latter talked of the casual racism with which he had fought all his life in Hollywood and elsewhere.
That was Parkinson's gift - not just to flatter the interviewee but to make them open up and make you think. I do think he was more than a little easier with the likes of Freddie Trueman but it's easy to understand why.
I see mention of the Govt being asked to use Section 143 of the Greater London Act to stop ULEZ on the grounds that it is 'detrimental to the interests of areas outside London'. Including by Paul Scully MP the Minister for London.
https://highways-news.com/government-could-block-ulez-expansion-plans/
Would they do it?
If they want to pursue crude politics, and believe what they are saying, then it should be in their *political* interest to let ULEZ continue and be the subsequent disaster caused by Labour they keep saying it is. Plus if they stop it will they have to stop all the other ULEZs in the other cities? And their emissions targets for 2028 may well be toast - which will open a flank to a 'Sunak & friends do not give a damn about the people's health' critique.
If on the other hand they think (as I do) ULEZ will impact relatively few, and will be a success ...
Hmm.
Very sadly my father in law died by taking his own life a few years ago. There is no doubt for me or my family, based on the circumstances and his history, that that’s what he did. However, in large part because there was no note, his death was recorded as an open verdict. I was genuinely surprised. But regardless, he would not be counted in the stats.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that recorded rates may be very different from actual rates and different nation’s evidence threshold for decision may well differ quite a lot.
The caution is largely political, I think.
And some concern about the technology - the avionics, not the airframe.
The chances of Ukrainian F-16 jets being used to attack targets in Russia is nil, unless that policy changes. This is actually one of the things that dilutes the effectiveness of the jets, because Russian jets frequently fire into Ukraine from Russian airspace, and SAM systems on Russian territory would make it hard for F-16 jets to operate in Ukrainian airspace.
It's possible that if that policy didn't apply that Western-equipped Ukrainian brigades would have captured Belgorod by now and Russia would be negotiating a territory swap with Ukraine to end the war. Or it could be that when those brigades reached Belgorod, Kyiv would have been nuked. But that is one of the asymmetries in the war that has enabled it to continue so long.
Sadly there doesn't seem to be a party of hard work and enterprise anymore.
And the Telegraph and Express readers don't consider themselves idle layablouts despite not having worked in decades.
Ukraine is not doing NATO style blitzkrieg because they are not equipped to do so, as they have been denied the ability to put in place the most basic building block - air supremacy - by the West. And Russia has had the time and space to build a defensive system due to delays of supply, also by the West.
And they have repeatedly stated that their strategy is dominated by husbanding resources, which seems fair and necessary given the above.
US estimates almost 500,000 Russian and Ukrainian military casualties in fighting in the conflict so far
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/18/ukraine-russia-war-battlefield-deaths-rise
Yesterday an NPR host said that Japan and Korea had "decades" of testy relations. This is like saying that Mexico has had "decades" of difficult relations w the US—or China w Vietnam, or Poland w Russia...
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1692577998455685335
A few of the missing episodes exist on audio and some are on YouTube.
Timeslip, The Tomorrow People and The Freewheelers. All good stuff.
All Argentine leaders want the Falklands to become Argentine ultimately but Milei makes clear he favours diplomacy with the British and the Hong Kong model not another Falklands War recognising we won the last one. Crucially he also says any change would have to have Falkland Islanders consent too
than loquacious. That must have been some time ago...
And of course they did and came back with a better alternative which doesn't involve charges ... And is expected to bring down emissions by more and sooner than the original proposal.
"And their emissions targets for 2028 may well be toast" ... If you want to target emissions them this is a pretty crappy way to do it. A polluting vehicle driving around all day every day paying the same emissions charge as one only doing a few miles doesn't really target emissions well.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxxmjr
I recall the time when the Scottish Government smoothed out tax rate steps a little and had higher income people pay a bit more and lower in come peoplke pay a bit less.
HMG very loudly gave Services officers and higher NCOs, billeted in Scotland, extra pay to "compensate".
What it did not do was to give the ORs, billeted in rUK, extra pay to "compensate".
This is very similar.
If I were Khan, I'd implement a much more radical decision and dare HMG(rUK) to shut down the London Assembly.
Indeed someone on say £110k now may be facing a higher real rate of tax now than they would have under Brown.
Oh yes.
Here.
Living it.
The question would be less pertinent if Khan were offering to return the ULEZ revenue raised from vehicles registered in say Essex back to Essex County Council, so that the only ULEZ revenue kept by Khan were that taken from Londoners. But so far he's not offering to do that.
It's not dissimilar to the taxation of second holiday homes. At face value, it's justified on the premise of improving the availability of housing to locals, even though these same councils are generally choosing to greatly restrict the release of land for new housing that could already be earmarked for local people under planning law. In reality, it's about a free hit - a council getting a huge amount of extra council tax from people who live outside its area and have no vote with which to hold the local councillors to account. The extra second home revenues could be shared out across all councils rather than just kept by the councils fortunate to have lots of holiday homes, in which case the policy wouldn't be driven by local fiscal greed. But at the moment the councils with second homes keep all of the extra cash.
Any sign of BJO tonight?
Someone driving across regions is as you say using the roads in multiple regions, all funded via their own taxation. So if they're further taxed in just one for a journey that took place in multiple regions, then that's not really proportionate.
But that doesn't really apply with holiday homes. A holiday home in say Cornwall isn't really affecting any other county, unlike a tax on roads that applies to routes both coming and going outside of that area.
Same with the councils in second home areas, and their CT payers. They *lose* commercial rates from firms which go bust because the village is full of second homes and the pubs and shops can't keep open for want of custom in winter, or employable people. Their voters don't want their areas expanded by privately built houses which will have their prices inflated by second homes, and most councils can't/won't do serious council house building (and why sjould the local CT payers have to pay extra anyway?).
Also, HMG(UK) have followed the Welsh (and Scottish?) lead in allowing councils to impose this, well not penal, but certainly additional, council tax, have they not? If so, it's illogical to do that and then complain about ULEZ, no?
And I knew one of my grandfathers well, and if you had said to him when he was 10 That's like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic he would have been mystified, because he was 10 in 1910.
Why is a vehicle making one return journey a day charged the same as a vehicle driving around all day, every day? Do they emit the same emissions?
The ULEZ is a very blunt instrument which doesn't really target emissions well. Instead it goes after punishing drivers of old vehicles, instead of emissions.
Manchester's original version of this was not going to clean up the air enough to meet legal targets and after being told to think again and having their charged for plan rejected by central government, they've come back with a revised plan which won't be charged for and will clean up the air by more and sooner than the original plan.
Think of it like the Pareto Principle. If ULEZ is a scheme that targets the 80% of polluting vehicles that do 20% of the emissions, then is that a good idea?
Or is it a better idea to target the 20% of polluting vehicles that do 80% of the emissions? Maybe not by charges, but by incentivising them to get off the road altogether and sooner.
*In general. In the Gwynedd I suspect that it's also motivated by the knowledge that most of those paying the second homes premium are English.
The actual primary pollution detriment is to London and Londoners, and that is Mr Khan's job. The penalties impsoed on cars etc are secondary to that.
Mary Harrington on transhumanism (oversimplification: the morality of changing the body to other than its nominal state) identifies the invention of oral contraception in the 50's as the start of the debate. I'd date it to 1959/1960/1961: the legalisation of suicide and gambling in E&W. Prior to that point suicide was a crime and those who survived it were arrested and punished. We forget from our comfortable perches how unimaginably cruel we can be, even when the news provides daily reminders
An example: an area has a school. Then half the houses get bought by holiday home owners. Half trhe school roll vanishes as the people have to move out. The school has to operate at less than optimum efficiency, merge, whatever.
Macabre thought: I wonder now many instances of 'murder for the insurance money, rigged to look like a suicide' resulted in a dead victim yet with no payout to the murderer.
With many documents available to download such as this 84 page one if you want some further reading: https://assets.ctfassets.net/tlpgbvy1k6h2/7jtkDc5AODypDQIw0cYwsl/67091a85f26e7c503a19ec7aeb2e8137/Appendix_1_-_Case_for_a_new_Greater_Manchester_Clean_Air_Plan.pdf
As far as I understand, instead of concentrating on charging a fee for driving on a day there, they're instead encouraging investment towards the most polluting vehicles with incentives to get them upgraded, including especially for example having upgraded the buses.
A bus driving around all day every day emits far more emissions than a car or van making a return journey does. Buses make up over 70% of emissions on some roads.
There's Bellingham of course, but he is still in his youth and was brought through in Germany.
Or should the vehicles which are driving around all day every day in London be targeted for upgrade instead, which will lower emissions far more and much sooner?
A microscopic surgery can result in a better outcome with fewer side effects than just taking a stab at an issue with a blunt instrument.
I was paying £2100pcm for a three bed flat in 2019; an identical flat in the same building is being advertised for £4100pcm today.
At the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Milei entered the Palace of the Argentine National Congress with a Ukrainian flag, showing his position towards the conflict.[130]
We know what happens when the sanction comes without that first.
What IS proof, is their hyper-populism combined with disrespect for constitutional restraints and democratic norms.
It is the current government in Argentina that is far more Putinist and hopefully its successor will be an improvement.
On ULEZ, you're moving the goalposts. It's a tax which is justified on the grounds that it will change behaviour, by forcing people to change their vehicles. That's fair enough. But it will change behaviour regardless of whether Khan or Essex County Council keep the revenue from those driving from in Essex. If it were really there to fund health care arising from pollution, Khan should be passing the revenues on to the NHS in London (and Essex), which he's not doing.
PS. Yes, it's penal. Second homes council tax in Gwynedd is going up to 4 times the normal rate. That is the basic rate plus a premium of 300%.
No bans, and I don't believe extra finance either. As far as I understand they're using the already-available resources to target the problematic issues sooner, rather than just having a blanket policy that doesn't deal with the issues.
The prior scheme, like the proposed London ULEZ, would have targeted the entirety of Greater Manchester but the problems in air quality, like in London, are not the same across the whole area. The outskirts of Wigan don't have the same air issues as inner Manchester or inner Salford, and having such a blanket policy both causes unnecessary hardship in Wigan, while not fixing the problems in Manchester or Salford.
Instead of a blanket policy that doesn't work, targeting the areas where there are problems and the vehicles that are causing those emissions on those roads, the problem can be solved more and sooner.
In the past 24 hours, Mr. Trump has told people close to him that he has made up his mind and will skip the debate in Milwaukee, according to two of the people briefed on the matter.
NY Times
https://www.local.gov.uk/topics/finance-and-business-rates/local-taxation-council-tax-and-business-rates
Property Taxes should be charged on the owners of the property, not the tenants, and a surcharge like that for those who don't live in the property they own is entirely reasonable.
The next regime may not be any better, but its hard to see it being much worse.