I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
It just means there is a greater return from political mischief making than from the probability adjusted chance of bringing down the Scottish government
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
So while stood in the old Central Station in Manchester (which used to have direct Trains to London before Beeching) Sunak is going to announce HS2 to Manchester is cancelled.
How tone deaf and stupid is he?
Just a caveat on that as it is Sky who are speculating and it has not been confirmed
Better still, they're likely to announce that Euston will go ahead, while cancelling Manchester.
Did y’all hear the recent episode of More or Less, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ggvbxq (it’s at the end of the episode), on HS2 and big infrastructure problems being expensive in the UK. They talked to a researcher who’s done an international comparison and concluded that big infrastructure projects all around the world often have overspends but that UK projects are no worse on average. We’re not exceptionally bad at these things.
However, HS2 is a mess and massively over-budget, which the interviewee put down to plans being repeatedly changed after work had started. He said that’s the main cause of extra expense.
The more or less episode was enlightening - funnily enough this morning R4 had a spokesman for a big building company who obviously hadn’t listened to MoL and was spouting crap about how none of this happened in any other country.
More interesting was the interview with the chap who ran HS1 and was head of Crossrail (Rob Bowman I think?) who made a few very interesting points, namely:
HS1 was designed and built for the French high speed rail tech and so all the kit and engineering was “out of the box” so cost a huge amount less.
With HS1 they did not divulge the overall budget, only a handful of people knew the ceiling and so when bids went in people didn’t go crazy having seen the billions on offer. He compared it to Crossrail where the budget was announced and similar jobs from HS1 were suddenly multiples more expensive.
He explained that for some reason HS2 was planned as a 400KPH line rather than 340KPH (I think he said) which was the European standard and so everything then becomes grossly more expensive because engineering had to be developed to accommodate the extra speed and huge costly measures had to be added to mitigate the extra noise issues this would cause.
From here and all the media it seems there are a million different views, cancel or continue, change this bit or that hit, it’s vital, it’s not. If there is no way near a consensus then surely the best thing is to pause, rework it in a sensible way that makes it more useful, acceptable and affordable. There is no point continuing to pour money into a mistake I would have thought. See what can be cut if they lower the speed requirement, see what has been done already and where it can be used as it is until a sensible plan is ready.
The cynic in me wonders if the custom spec for HS2 was a reaction to HS1 - got to get those costs up somehow.
Some years back, I met a very angry sales guy from BAe. The F35 program hadn’t been customised (enough) to “unique British requirements”. So if a weapon is qualified to fit one F35B, it will be included in the next software update for all F35B - internationally. Worse, the US Marine Corps squadrons operating off the U.K. carriers would include instructors in their weapons - so U.K. pilots could end up trained on such weapons.
All this added up, in the opinion of the sales guy to a disaster - his area was selling integration and training for weapons being bought for U.K. military aircraft.
I would guess the spec for HS2 was that politician says “I want the best fast train service in the world so I can say we have a world leading rail service” and then a load of people google “fastest trains” and find that 400KPH is at least faster than all the European ones so they start there instead of saying “we need to free up capacity on existing lines and have a faster service, how do we best get that, is speed or capacity the priority, how can we build it with existing kit and which are the priority routes.”
There just seems to be a lack of any thought that you can save shitloads of money adapting off the shelf kit (see the military too) but also this obsession with wanting a “world beating” something and then working towards that rather than simply saying “what do we really need without perfect being the enemy of good” and then working towards that.
IIRC the reason for 400km/h provision was that, although current trains are slower, many countries are looking at 400km/h. Given the fifteen or so years it would take to build HS2, by the time it was opened, other countries would have 400km/h lines and trains.
So what ? Given the distances involved, any cost benefit analysis would have shown it wasn't worth it.
And as you regularly remind us, it was in any event about capacity, not speed.
It is, indeed. But evidently a cost benefit analysis did show it was worth it - and remember, it's a line being built to run not for five years, but for many, many decades.
Lets see a rational, independent cost benefit analysis that shows a custom spec of 400km/h over a less than 400km distance is worthwhile over an off the shelf 300 or similar standard spec?
And then people cry that its "capacity" that matters, but that supposedly this unique spec is necessary too, make your minds up.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
What should the conservatives have done about the media cycle?
The issue arose, and we would likely not be hearing about it for the last few weeks, because, as the BBC political editor said this morning, a photographer snapped some idiot going into Downing Street with a visible doc on talks between Hunt and Sunak re HS2.
Do you think the Tories should have rushed a decision in order to close down the media cycle or do you think it’s better in the long run that a decision is made (rightly or wrongly) based on talks, evidence and plans rather than “shit, the media know we are discussing it we better close it down asap with a rushed decision”?
I would suggest the decision has already been made and they intended revealing it in the Autumn statement in November but leaks overtook events
What is certain is that if the decision is to cancel then the explanation and alternative investments are going to have to stand up to public scrutiny
"Suella Braverman will announce today a lifetime ban on sex offenders changing their name and gender in an attempt to close a loophole that is allowing criminals to evade the sex offence register."
It has cross-party support. Sarah Champion, the Labour MP, has long campaigned for this. So I hope it goes through.
Not convinced - wouldn’t an obligation to re-register u see the new name (with a link to their old name) be preferable to adding an additional punishment outwith the jurisdiction of the courts?
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
The journey is pretty simple. Take the most extreme woke things that are happening in the world, some of which are indeed bonkers. See that most young people consider themselves woke. Get scared most young people want the bonkers extreme things to be commonplace.
It is not reality but a story easily told in echo chambers.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
My main problem with cancelling HS2 is this. It's a bit like ordering a Range Rover for £100,000, paying 30% up front, changing your mind and forgoing the deposit. It doesn't make financial sense.
Did y’all hear the recent episode of More or Less, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ggvbxq (it’s at the end of the episode), on HS2 and big infrastructure problems being expensive in the UK. They talked to a researcher who’s done an international comparison and concluded that big infrastructure projects all around the world often have overspends but that UK projects are no worse on average. We’re not exceptionally bad at these things.
However, HS2 is a mess and massively over-budget, which the interviewee put down to plans being repeatedly changed after work had started. He said that’s the main cause of extra expense.
The more or less episode was enlightening - funnily enough this morning R4 had a spokesman for a big building company who obviously hadn’t listened to MoL and was spouting crap about how none of this happened in any other country.
More interesting was the interview with the chap who ran HS1 and was head of Crossrail (Rob Bowman I think?) who made a few very interesting points, namely:
HS1 was designed and built for the French high speed rail tech and so all the kit and engineering was “out of the box” so cost a huge amount less.
With HS1 they did not divulge the overall budget, only a handful of people knew the ceiling and so when bids went in people didn’t go crazy having seen the billions on offer. He compared it to Crossrail where the budget was announced and similar jobs from HS1 were suddenly multiples more expensive.
He explained that for some reason HS2 was planned as a 400KPH line rather than 340KPH (I think he said) which was the European standard and so everything then becomes grossly more expensive because engineering had to be developed to accommodate the extra speed and huge costly measures had to be added to mitigate the extra noise issues this would cause.
From here and all the media it seems there are a million different views, cancel or continue, change this bit or that hit, it’s vital, it’s not. If there is no way near a consensus then surely the best thing is to pause, rework it in a sensible way that makes it more useful, acceptable and affordable. There is no point continuing to pour money into a mistake I would have thought. See what can be cut if they lower the speed requirement, see what has been done already and where it can be used as it is until a sensible plan is ready.
The cynic in me wonders if the custom spec for HS2 was a reaction to HS1 - got to get those costs up somehow.
Some years back, I met a very angry sales guy from BAe. The F35 program hadn’t been customised (enough) to “unique British requirements”. So if a weapon is qualified to fit one F35B, it will be included in the next software update for all F35B - internationally. Worse, the US Marine Corps squadrons operating off the U.K. carriers would include instructors in their weapons - so U.K. pilots could end up trained on such weapons.
All this added up, in the opinion of the sales guy to a disaster - his area was selling integration and training for weapons being bought for U.K. military aircraft.
I would guess the spec for HS2 was that politician says “I want the best fast train service in the world so I can say we have a world leading rail service” and then a load of people google “fastest trains” and find that 400KPH is at least faster than all the European ones so they start there instead of saying “we need to free up capacity on existing lines and have a faster service, how do we best get that, is speed or capacity the priority, how can we build it with existing kit and which are the priority routes.”
There just seems to be a lack of any thought that you can save shitloads of money adapting off the shelf kit (see the military too) but also this obsession with wanting a “world beating” something and then working towards that rather than simply saying “what do we really need without perfect being the enemy of good” and then working towards that.
IIRC the reason for 400km/h provision was that, although current trains are slower, many countries are looking at 400km/h. Given the fifteen or so years it would take to build HS2, by the time it was opened, other countries would have 400km/h lines and trains.
So what ? Given the distances involved, any cost benefit analysis would have shown it wasn't worth it.
And as you regularly remind us, it was in any event about capacity, not speed.
It is, indeed. But evidently a cost benefit analysis did show it was worth it - and remember, it's a line being built to run not for five years, but for many, many decades.
Lets see a rational, independent cost benefit analysis that shows a custom spec of 400km/h over a less than 400km distance is worthwhile over an off the shelf 300 or similar standard spec?
And then people cry that its "capacity" that matters, but that supposedly this unique spec is necessary too, make your minds up.
I might suggest you read my post from yesterday, outlining how the project came about. It is about capacity, but if you're building a new route, best to make it as future-proof as possible.
I expect you'd be happy with a new motorway being built that had only one lane in each direction, and a 10MPH speed limit on it?
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think you may have missed the point. The conversion of an existing state into an agrarian economy and the displacements of its people has several historical precedents. The first one I thought of was the Morgenthau Plan. The one @Nigelb thought of was Generalplan Ost. All of which are specifically designed to cause millions of deaths.
Did y’all hear the recent episode of More or Less, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ggvbxq (it’s at the end of the episode), on HS2 and big infrastructure problems being expensive in the UK. They talked to a researcher who’s done an international comparison and concluded that big infrastructure projects all around the world often have overspends but that UK projects are no worse on average. We’re not exceptionally bad at these things.
However, HS2 is a mess and massively over-budget, which the interviewee put down to plans being repeatedly changed after work had started. He said that’s the main cause of extra expense.
The more or less episode was enlightening - funnily enough this morning R4 had a spokesman for a big building company who obviously hadn’t listened to MoL and was spouting crap about how none of this happened in any other country.
More interesting was the interview with the chap who ran HS1 and was head of Crossrail (Rob Bowman I think?) who made a few very interesting points, namely:
HS1 was designed and built for the French high speed rail tech and so all the kit and engineering was “out of the box” so cost a huge amount less.
With HS1 they did not divulge the overall budget, only a handful of people knew the ceiling and so when bids went in people didn’t go crazy having seen the billions on offer. He compared it to Crossrail where the budget was announced and similar jobs from HS1 were suddenly multiples more expensive.
He explained that for some reason HS2 was planned as a 400KPH line rather than 340KPH (I think he said) which was the European standard and so everything then becomes grossly more expensive because engineering had to be developed to accommodate the extra speed and huge costly measures had to be added to mitigate the extra noise issues this would cause.
From here and all the media it seems there are a million different views, cancel or continue, change this bit or that hit, it’s vital, it’s not. If there is no way near a consensus then surely the best thing is to pause, rework it in a sensible way that makes it more useful, acceptable and affordable. There is no point continuing to pour money into a mistake I would have thought. See what can be cut if they lower the speed requirement, see what has been done already and where it can be used as it is until a sensible plan is ready.
The cynic in me wonders if the custom spec for HS2 was a reaction to HS1 - got to get those costs up somehow.
Some years back, I met a very angry sales guy from BAe. The F35 program hadn’t been customised (enough) to “unique British requirements”. So if a weapon is qualified to fit one F35B, it will be included in the next software update for all F35B - internationally. Worse, the US Marine Corps squadrons operating off the U.K. carriers would include instructors in their weapons - so U.K. pilots could end up trained on such weapons.
All this added up, in the opinion of the sales guy to a disaster - his area was selling integration and training for weapons being bought for U.K. military aircraft.
I would guess the spec for HS2 was that politician says “I want the best fast train service in the world so I can say we have a world leading rail service” and then a load of people google “fastest trains” and find that 400KPH is at least faster than all the European ones so they start there instead of saying “we need to free up capacity on existing lines and have a faster service, how do we best get that, is speed or capacity the priority, how can we build it with existing kit and which are the priority routes.”
There just seems to be a lack of any thought that you can save shitloads of money adapting off the shelf kit (see the military too) but also this obsession with wanting a “world beating” something and then working towards that rather than simply saying “what do we really need without perfect being the enemy of good” and then working towards that.
IIRC the reason for 400km/h provision was that, although current trains are slower, many countries are looking at 400km/h. Given the fifteen or so years it would take to build HS2, by the time it was opened, other countries would have 400km/h lines and trains.
So what ? Given the distances involved, any cost benefit analysis would have shown it wasn't worth it.
And as you regularly remind us, it was in any event about capacity, not speed.
It's not worth building a high speed line to Birmingham, it's not far enough. It should always have been planned to go to Glasgow.
I can't help thinking the "cost overrun" is a feature, not a bug, and designed to provide grift for Tory donors.
It's about time we got back to the central tenet of capitalism, profit is the reward for capitalism and if you fuck up, you lose your shirt.
According to Yanis Varoufakis, whose new book I've just finished, capitalism is no longer in the driving seat anyway... I was thinking before I read it to write up a critical review of it for PB (after all, the end of capitalism is something that communists have long predicted), but I found the arguments of fact strangely persuasive. So I may need to reread it.
Did y’all hear the recent episode of More or Less, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ggvbxq (it’s at the end of the episode), on HS2 and big infrastructure problems being expensive in the UK. They talked to a researcher who’s done an international comparison and concluded that big infrastructure projects all around the world often have overspends but that UK projects are no worse on average. We’re not exceptionally bad at these things.
However, HS2 is a mess and massively over-budget, which the interviewee put down to plans being repeatedly changed after work had started. He said that’s the main cause of extra expense.
The more or less episode was enlightening - funnily enough this morning R4 had a spokesman for a big building company who obviously hadn’t listened to MoL and was spouting crap about how none of this happened in any other country.
More interesting was the interview with the chap who ran HS1 and was head of Crossrail (Rob Bowman I think?) who made a few very interesting points, namely:
HS1 was designed and built for the French high speed rail tech and so all the kit and engineering was “out of the box” so cost a huge amount less.
With HS1 they did not divulge the overall budget, only a handful of people knew the ceiling and so when bids went in people didn’t go crazy having seen the billions on offer. He compared it to Crossrail where the budget was announced and similar jobs from HS1 were suddenly multiples more expensive.
He explained that for some reason HS2 was planned as a 400KPH line rather than 340KPH (I think he said) which was the European standard and so everything then becomes grossly more expensive because engineering had to be developed to accommodate the extra speed and huge costly measures had to be added to mitigate the extra noise issues this would cause.
From here and all the media it seems there are a million different views, cancel or continue, change this bit or that hit, it’s vital, it’s not. If there is no way near a consensus then surely the best thing is to pause, rework it in a sensible way that makes it more useful, acceptable and affordable. There is no point continuing to pour money into a mistake I would have thought. See what can be cut if they lower the speed requirement, see what has been done already and where it can be used as it is until a sensible plan is ready.
The cynic in me wonders if the custom spec for HS2 was a reaction to HS1 - got to get those costs up somehow.
Some years back, I met a very angry sales guy from BAe. The F35 program hadn’t been customised (enough) to “unique British requirements”. So if a weapon is qualified to fit one F35B, it will be included in the next software update for all F35B - internationally. Worse, the US Marine Corps squadrons operating off the U.K. carriers would include instructors in their weapons - so U.K. pilots could end up trained on such weapons.
All this added up, in the opinion of the sales guy to a disaster - his area was selling integration and training for weapons being bought for U.K. military aircraft.
I would guess the spec for HS2 was that politician says “I want the best fast train service in the world so I can say we have a world leading rail service” and then a load of people google “fastest trains” and find that 400KPH is at least faster than all the European ones so they start there instead of saying “we need to free up capacity on existing lines and have a faster service, how do we best get that, is speed or capacity the priority, how can we build it with existing kit and which are the priority routes.”
There just seems to be a lack of any thought that you can save shitloads of money adapting off the shelf kit (see the military too) but also this obsession with wanting a “world beating” something and then working towards that rather than simply saying “what do we really need without perfect being the enemy of good” and then working towards that.
Remember what NASA said about the DC-X project? - it was boring and not innovative enough.
So they turned it in the X-33 project with *all* the new technologies possible.
It failed of course, after some billions were spent. But hey, it was interesting.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
Anyway, I am getting on a train a few hours time to visit the capital for work and stuff, then to Glasgow for an exciting conference and finally Carlisle to see what the place has to offer. It's a pain to drive to from here so have booked into what looks like a nice B&B.
I know it's not the Maldives but I will try to take pictures of Glasgow rain and Carlisle rain in the most becoming way possible.
I hope these train journeys will work at least .....
With the Cons seemingly gone full Ukip where does that now leave the coming election? I've long been of the mind of a smaller Lab majority, something like 25-50. But the increasing irrelevance of what the current government is saying to punters could well swell the likely opposition vote in an election. Could a strong Lab performance and a resurgent LibDem vote, in such circumstances herald a much stronger majority via a pincer movement (or perhaps pincher is more appropriate)...
For as long as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been that you have to capture the centre ground of British politics. It's a mystery to me why a policy of lurching to the right should result in any net benefit at all. Even if it had a net benefit for the total Tory vote share, without a shadow of a doubt it would increase tactical voting against the Tories.
The other consequence is that the starting point for the Tories after the election would be somewhere much closer to the lunatic fringe, and the party would be ripe to shift even further away from sanity. After Labour's shift to the left in the early 1980s, the Tories were in power for another decade and a half. I'm wondering whether the Tories will ever recover from the legacy of Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak.
There is IMO a serious risk that they come close to being wiped out - below 100 seats.
I doubt that. The Conservative Party is akin to a cockroach. It can survive nuclear Armageddon. A quarter of the population will vote for the name alone irrespective of how right wing populist the march forward becomes. That is a shame. Obliteration followed by a phoenix from the ashes. "one nation" party that swifty establishes itself as fit for government would be optimal.
As that won't happen we can only hope that Mordaunt, Tugenhadt or Cleverly become leader and isolate the nutjobs. Should Labour fail we are left with the serious prospect of a landslide PM Braverman, Badenoch, Truss or Patel which doesn't bear thinking about. Never forget, the venal Johnson created this monster for self-aggrandisement purposes and didn't consider the consequences.
Truss wont be leader FFS. It’s gonna be Badenoch, Mordaunt or Cleverley.
Has anyone told Liz?
You spent yesterday diving with Chinese nubiles and clearly missed her candidate's speech
Did y’all hear the recent episode of More or Less, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ggvbxq (it’s at the end of the episode), on HS2 and big infrastructure problems being expensive in the UK. They talked to a researcher who’s done an international comparison and concluded that big infrastructure projects all around the world often have overspends but that UK projects are no worse on average. We’re not exceptionally bad at these things.
However, HS2 is a mess and massively over-budget, which the interviewee put down to plans being repeatedly changed after work had started. He said that’s the main cause of extra expense.
The more or less episode was enlightening - funnily enough this morning R4 had a spokesman for a big building company who obviously hadn’t listened to MoL and was spouting crap about how none of this happened in any other country.
More interesting was the interview with the chap who ran HS1 and was head of Crossrail (Rob Bowman I think?) who made a few very interesting points, namely:
HS1 was designed and built for the French high speed rail tech and so all the kit and engineering was “out of the box” so cost a huge amount less.
With HS1 they did not divulge the overall budget, only a handful of people knew the ceiling and so when bids went in people didn’t go crazy having seen the billions on offer. He compared it to Crossrail where the budget was announced and similar jobs from HS1 were suddenly multiples more expensive.
He explained that for some reason HS2 was planned as a 400KPH line rather than 340KPH (I think he said) which was the European standard and so everything then becomes grossly more expensive because engineering had to be developed to accommodate the extra speed and huge costly measures had to be added to mitigate the extra noise issues this would cause.
From here and all the media it seems there are a million different views, cancel or continue, change this bit or that hit, it’s vital, it’s not. If there is no way near a consensus then surely the best thing is to pause, rework it in a sensible way that makes it more useful, acceptable and affordable. There is no point continuing to pour money into a mistake I would have thought. See what can be cut if they lower the speed requirement, see what has been done already and where it can be used as it is until a sensible plan is ready.
The cynic in me wonders if the custom spec for HS2 was a reaction to HS1 - got to get those costs up somehow.
Some years back, I met a very angry sales guy from BAe. The F35 program hadn’t been customised (enough) to “unique British requirements”. So if a weapon is qualified to fit one F35B, it will be included in the next software update for all F35B - internationally. Worse, the US Marine Corps squadrons operating off the U.K. carriers would include instructors in their weapons - so U.K. pilots could end up trained on such weapons.
All this added up, in the opinion of the sales guy to a disaster - his area was selling integration and training for weapons being bought for U.K. military aircraft.
I would guess the spec for HS2 was that politician says “I want the best fast train service in the world so I can say we have a world leading rail service” and then a load of people google “fastest trains” and find that 400KPH is at least faster than all the European ones so they start there instead of saying “we need to free up capacity on existing lines and have a faster service, how do we best get that, is speed or capacity the priority, how can we build it with existing kit and which are the priority routes.”
There just seems to be a lack of any thought that you can save shitloads of money adapting off the shelf kit (see the military too) but also this obsession with wanting a “world beating” something and then working towards that rather than simply saying “what do we really need without perfect being the enemy of good” and then working towards that.
IIRC the reason for 400km/h provision was that, although current trains are slower, many countries are looking at 400km/h. Given the fifteen or so years it would take to build HS2, by the time it was opened, other countries would have 400km/h lines and trains.
Which was not a good reason to do it.
Other countries are thousands of kilometres long.
England, especially just London to Manchester, is not. Its less 200 miles via the M1 and M6.
Keeping up with the Joneses is not a good reason to do anything, we need to do what's right for our country, and theoretically if it could be done at half the price if it was 300km instead of 400km then that would be the right decision.
But realistically the biggest cost is all the chopping and changing and lack of certainty. There should have been one set of specifications agreed, then it should have been built, no ifs, no buts and no equivocations.
The plan was the time table expected 320km/h, normal across services similar in length as Manc to London across Europe.
The trains could run at 360km/h, the same as modern similar length services in Europe, this extra speed enabled the train to try to catch up if running behind schedule.
The 400km/h was purely straighter tracks, nothing else, the physics of going around a corner with a tight radius at high speed means the train topples over at some point.
HS2 will last for decades and decades, at some point 400km/h trains from London to Edinburgh may have ran in them, taking all those flights away.
The extra cost of slightly less sharp curves is absolutely minimal in the scheme overall.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
So while stood in the old Central Station in Manchester (which used to have direct Trains to London before Beeching) Sunak is going to announce HS2 to Manchester is cancelled.
How tone deaf and stupid is he?
And then he'll fly back to London.
At this rate of alienation the entire delegate base will be heading back either in Sunak's little chopper or by Shapp's pony.
Public transport networks will probably just tell them to go whistle.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
I don't get it. How can they be this inept?
You've forgotten THE SPEECH WHERE NOTHING AT ALL IS SAID ABOUT HS2 - and everyone else goes WTF?!?!
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
The journey is pretty simple. Take the most extreme woke things that are happening in the world, some of which are indeed bonkers. See that most young people consider themselves woke. Get scared most young people want the bonkers extreme things to be commonplace.
It is not reality but a story easily told in echo chambers.
I would just like an example of "extreme woke things" and an explanation of how they are woke, and how they will lead to the end of the "western world".
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
My main problem with cancelling HS2 is this. It's a bit like ordering a Range Rover for £100,000, paying 30% up front, changing your mind and forgoing the deposit. It doesn't make financial sense.
It does if you don't have the £70,000
Well no.
You could find some sort of external funding in order to pass the project (as suggested by Street) or the Range Rover, on to a third party. Either way you must save your up front deposit.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
I don't get it. How can they be this inept?
You've forgotten THE SPEECH WHERE NOTHING AT ALL IS SAID ABOUT HS2 - and everyone else goes WTF?!?!
Maybe he should go Trumpian and say that the decision has been made to covfefe HS2. If asked to explain, just repeat its been covfefed. Not sure it would be any worse. And expect much of the audience to still applaud even if confused.
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think you may have missed the point. The conversion of an existing state into an agrarian economy and the displacements of its people has several historical precedents. The first one I thought of was the Morgenthau Plan. The one @Nigelb thought of was Generalplan Ost. All of which are specifically designed to cause millions of deaths.
I know all that. I was simply pointing out that Ukraine is valuable for quite other reasons - something that is missed in the discussions about why Russia is fighting for it. Most of those deposits are, I understand, in the Eastern part of the country.
Ukraine has the potential to be one of the richest countries in Europe. If free and in charge of its own destiny.
With the Cons seemingly gone full Ukip where does that now leave the coming election? I've long been of the mind of a smaller Lab majority, something like 25-50. But the increasing irrelevance of what the current government is saying to punters could well swell the likely opposition vote in an election. Could a strong Lab performance and a resurgent LibDem vote, in such circumstances herald a much stronger majority via a pincer movement (or perhaps pincher is more appropriate)...
For as long as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been that you have to capture the centre ground of British politics. It's a mystery to me why a policy of lurching to the right should result in any net benefit at all. Even if it had a net benefit for the total Tory vote share, without a shadow of a doubt it would increase tactical voting against the Tories.
The other consequence is that the starting point for the Tories after the election would be somewhere much closer to the lunatic fringe, and the party would be ripe to shift even further away from sanity. After Labour's shift to the left in the early 1980s, the Tories were in power for another decade and a half. I'm wondering whether the Tories will ever recover from the legacy of Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak.
There is IMO a serious risk that they come close to being wiped out - below 100 seats.
I doubt that. The Conservative Party is akin to a cockroach. It can survive nuclear Armageddon. A quarter of the population will vote for the name alone irrespective of how right wing populist the march forward becomes. That is a shame. Obliteration followed by a phoenix from the ashes. "one nation" party that swifty establishes itself as fit for government would be optimal.
As that won't happen we can only hope that Mordaunt, Tugenhadt or Cleverly become leader and isolate the nutjobs. Should Labour fail we are left with the serious prospect of a landslide PM Braverman, Badenoch, Truss or Patel which doesn't bear thinking about. Never forget, the venal Johnson created this monster for self-aggrandisement purposes and didn't consider the consequences.
Actually, Patel was sounding pretty calm and reasonable in today's Times;
Priti Patel, the former home secretary, said any move to cancel the northern leg would be a “pretty drastic step forward”, adding: “I think there’s a lot of questions to ask about how he reached that decision. What kind of work have they done, what kind of analysis, what kind of assumptions? And have they actually gone into all the scenarios around viability?”
I almost choked on my fruit'n'fibre.
As for the Conservatives, they have survived a lot in the past. But FPTP has a nasty cliff edge in the high twenties percent.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
My main problem with cancelling HS2 is this. It's a bit like ordering a Range Rover for £100,000, paying 30% up front, changing your mind and forgoing the deposit. It doesn't make financial sense.
It does if you don't have the £70,000
But that's not the claim.
The claim is that we'd rather spend the money on something else. We don't know what that is, but it will have to be damn good to make up for the money wasted on aborting HS2 Manc.
Actually, given how many of the other big reveals this conference have turned out to be wibble, how much difference can Rishi make here? Most of the spending will be a decade down the line, so presumably it doesn't release much money for him to spend now anyway.
How poisonous is the pill of Sunak cancelling HS2 Manc and a successor reinstating it?
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
So essentially you refuse to give me examples of what you mean, wait for a response of mine that you can use to dismiss having this conversation, and then take victory? And this is a mindset that has inherited Enlightenment values?
If you think that I am wrong you could explain. And again, even if I was too dim to get it, the act of explanation could convince the others in the audience. Thereby convincing people in the market place of ideas of the superiority of your ideas.
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think you may have missed the point. The conversion of an existing state into an agrarian economy and the displacements of its people has several historical precedents. The first one I thought of was the Morgenthau Plan. The one @Nigelb thought of was Generalplan Ost. All of which are specifically designed to cause millions of deaths.
I know all that. I was simply pointing out that Ukraine is valuable for quite other reasons - something that is missed in the discussions about why Russia is fighting for it. Most of those deposits are, I understand, in the Eastern part of the country.
Ukraine has the potential to be one of the richest countries in Europe. If free and in charge of its own destiny.
There's oil and gas in the offshore waters, as well.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
My main problem with cancelling HS2 is this. It's a bit like ordering a Range Rover for £100,000, paying 30% up front, changing your mind and forgoing the deposit. It doesn't make financial sense.
It does if you don't have the £70,000
I think it's one of those things where it's cheaper to finish it than not. The cost-benefit ratio when a project is partly performed is different to before it starts. I'm aware of the sunk-cost fallacy but it's a rule-of-thumb not an absolute, and in this case I think inaccurate.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
The journey is pretty simple. Take the most extreme woke things that are happening in the world, some of which are indeed bonkers. See that most young people consider themselves woke. Get scared most young people want the bonkers extreme things to be commonplace.
It is not reality but a story easily told in echo chambers.
I would just like an example of "extreme woke things" and an explanation of how they are woke, and how they will lead to the end of the "western world".
One example is actors having to be the same race to play a part. As I repeatedly point out good luck finding a suitable one quarter Thai, one quarter Chinese, one eighth African American, one eighth Native Amercian, with a hint of Dutch actor to play Tiger Woods in his biopic.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
It probably does not soothe you to know that Matthew Goodwin explicitly prefers "PC gone mad" to "woke" or its variants because it's not understood on the doorstep. People with everyday concerns are not as widely read in multiple concurrent end-of-the-West theories as you are.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
I don't get it. How can they be this inept?
Sadly that just highlights the point that there seems to be no consensus on whether it’s a good thing worth spending billions more on or a bad thing where the costs already sunk are less of a problem than continuing pouring in more good money after bad.
So many different groups want different things from it, high speed commuting, extra freight capacity, tunnels so my house price isn’t affected but I get the benefits when I want a quicker train to London, etc etc.
Sometimes just better to go back to the drawing board and say “we can afford x, what is the best bang we can get for it” explain it and then get on with it.
"Suella Braverman will announce today a lifetime ban on sex offenders changing their name and gender in an attempt to close a loophole that is allowing criminals to evade the sex offence register."
It has cross-party support. Sarah Champion, the Labour MP, has long campaigned for this. So I hope it goes through.
Not convinced - wouldn’t an obligation to re-register u see the new name (with a link to their old name) be preferable to adding an additional punishment outwith the jurisdiction of the courts?
It's not a punishment. There is an existing loophole. That loophole needs to be closed by placing an obligation on those authorities which register changes of identity to link this to the DBS process. There is little point putting another obligation on sex offenders when they are already failing to comply with their existing ones.
So a sex offender can change their name but when they get a driving licence in their new name that is linked to the previous name and the new name goes on the sex offenders' register. So even if the sex offender fails to notify the register of his new name, this is still picked up by the screening process.
What is wrong with that?
Very necessary because currently sex offenders are exploiting the loopholes, gaining access to children and offending again.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
I don't get it. How can they be this inept?
You've forgotten THE SPEECH WHERE NOTHING AT ALL IS SAID ABOUT HS2 - and everyone else goes WTF?!?!
Downing St confirming to @MhariAurora that the PM’s speech WILL contain HS2 announcement and that it’ll be “worth waiting for” at exactly the same moment he denies all knowledge on a broadcast round…
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
Homoeopathy and similar "alternative" "medicine".
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
I don't get it. How can they be this inept?
You've forgotten THE SPEECH WHERE NOTHING AT ALL IS SAID ABOUT HS2 - and everyone else goes WTF?!?!
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think that misses the point.
This is a scheme (admittedly not formal government policy) for destroying Ukraine as a polity forever. It proposes destruction of road and rail networks; power stations; industry and "large settlements". A political rather than economic plan, of a drastic kind, which is why I called it a Generalplan Westen.
No doubt exploitation of mineral resources would also happen.
Not unlike the Morgenthau plan for post war Germany.
With the Cons seemingly gone full Ukip where does that now leave the coming election? I've long been of the mind of a smaller Lab majority, something like 25-50. But the increasing irrelevance of what the current government is saying to punters could well swell the likely opposition vote in an election. Could a strong Lab performance and a resurgent LibDem vote, in such circumstances herald a much stronger majority via a pincer movement (or perhaps pincher is more appropriate)...
For as long as I can remember, the conventional wisdom has been that you have to capture the centre ground of British politics. It's a mystery to me why a policy of lurching to the right should result in any net benefit at all. Even if it had a net benefit for the total Tory vote share, without a shadow of a doubt it would increase tactical voting against the Tories.
The other consequence is that the starting point for the Tories after the election would be somewhere much closer to the lunatic fringe, and the party would be ripe to shift even further away from sanity. After Labour's shift to the left in the early 1980s, the Tories were in power for another decade and a half. I'm wondering whether the Tories will ever recover from the legacy of Cameron-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak.
There is IMO a serious risk that they come close to being wiped out - below 100 seats.
I doubt that. The Conservative Party is akin to a cockroach. It can survive nuclear Armageddon. A quarter of the population will vote for the name alone irrespective of how right wing populist the march forward becomes. That is a shame. Obliteration followed by a phoenix from the ashes. "one nation" party that swifty establishes itself as fit for government would be optimal.
As that won't happen we can only hope that Mordaunt, Tugenhadt or Cleverly become leader and isolate the nutjobs. Should Labour fail we are left with the serious prospect of a landslide PM Braverman, Badenoch, Truss or Patel which doesn't bear thinking about. Never forget, the venal Johnson created this monster for self-aggrandisement purposes and didn't consider the consequences.
Demographics alone argue against any future Tory landslide if they go even further to the extreme. They have so alienated so much of the working age population that if Labour does win a majority at the next GE, they’ll have to mess up spectacularly not to win another term should the Tories end up with Braverman, Truss or Patel as leader. Badenoch may be another matter as she does seem to have a degree of pragmatism about her.
Yes, I sense Badenoch might be their best choice, for a comeback victory in 2028 (unless they are beaten so badly a comeback is impossible)
She is different enough to be interesting and have ideas; she’s political enough to see the need for centrism in some areas
But she’s also a bit of a blank slate. I might be projecting. Need to see more of her to know
But where’s is she on the all important sets Leon’s loins a-trembling measure?
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
New medical schools on the way - but Labour says they already exist
Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Barclay will announce an expansion of NHS training and funding of new technology in the health service.
He will also announce new medical schools in Worcester, Chester and Uxbridge, as well as an increase in the number of places up and down the country for students wanting to train to be doctors.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
So essentially you refuse to give me examples of what you mean, wait for a response of mine that you can use to dismiss having this conversation, and then take victory? And this is a mindset that has inherited Enlightenment values?
If you think that I am wrong you could explain. And again, even if I was too dim to get it, the act of explanation could convince the others in the audience. Thereby convincing people in the market place of ideas of the superiority of your ideas.
Last night you consistently misspelled hindrance as “hinderance”. I don’t normally bring up typos or mis-spells as it is trivial but
1. You are requesting evidence of your unintelligence
And
2. You claim to work in education, so spelling matters
Sky saying the HS2 decision is expected to be announced by Sunak in his speech tomorrow after a cabinet meeting later today
I cannot understand how on earth the conservatives have allowed this to dominate the media cycle other than abject communication incompetence
I have mixed feelings on HS2 and need to hear the explanation and alternative investments for the North but they couldn’t have handed a better gift to Labour for their conference next week
It is truly inspired media handling. Three options for Richy tomorrow I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
I don't get it. How can they be this inept?
You've forgotten THE SPEECH WHERE NOTHING AT ALL IS SAID ABOUT HS2 - and everyone else goes WTF?!?!
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
Homoeopathy and similar "alternative" "medicine".
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
I can agree that lots of political parties certainly act and have policies that hold those incorrect beliefs or deny the scientific consensus on those topics. I would argue their significance, but sure.
Which British parties deny geological time? Like, I would accept that as a criticism of the GOP - but do any of the UK parties actively deny it?
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think that misses the point.
This is a scheme (admittedly not formal government policy) for destroying Ukraine as a polity forever. It proposes destruction of road and rail networks; power stations; industry and "large settlements". A political rather than economic plan, of a drastic kind, which is why I called it a Generalplan Westen.
No doubt exploitation of mineral resources would also happen.
Not unlike the Morgenthau plan for post war Germany.
I believe one of the madder plans for post Nazi Germany involved the sterilisation of all German males
Perhaps I shouldn’t mention this in case it gives Putin (who clearly lurks here) ideas for Ukraine
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think that misses the point.
This is a scheme (admittedly not formal government policy) for destroying Ukraine as a polity forever. It proposes destruction of road and rail networks; power stations; industry and "large settlements". A political rather than economic plan, of a drastic kind, which is why I called it a Generalplan Westen.
No doubt exploitation of mineral resources would also happen.
Not unlike the Morgenthau plan for post war Germany.
I believe one of the madder plans for post Nazi Germany involved the sterilisation of all German males
Perhaps I shouldn’t mention this in case it gives Putin (who clearly lurks here) ideas for Ukraine
I thought it was you who got your ideas from Putin, not the other way around
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
So should he wait until he is safely back in London and then be accused of being a coward for not announcing it in Manchester and also get more abuse from those who are screaming for an announcement asap?
He has to announce somewhere, the conference is in Manchester, people want announcement urgently. I’m sure you would have been saying it is good politics if he had instead waited until he’s in Downing Street away from the pitchfork wielding hoards in Manchester demanding a very expensive train line.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
It probably does not soothe you to know that Matthew Goodwin explicitly prefers "PC gone mad" to "woke" or its variants because it's not understood on the doorstep. People with everyday concerns are not as widely read in multiple concurrent end-of-the-West theories as you are.
Why should I give a fuck what “Matthew Goodwin” thinks? Moreover, why should I give the tiniest iota of a fuck what “people on the doorstep think”? I’m not trying to get elected
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
That's down from the £96bn that they had committed to in the Integrated Railway Plan very recently.
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think that misses the point.
This is a scheme (admittedly not formal government policy) for destroying Ukraine as a polity forever. It proposes destruction of road and rail networks; power stations; industry and "large settlements". A political rather than economic plan, of a drastic kind, which is why I called it a Generalplan Westen.
No doubt exploitation of mineral resources would also happen.
Not unlike the Morgenthau plan for post war Germany.
I believe one of the madder plans for post Nazi Germany involved the sterilisation of all German males
Perhaps I shouldn’t mention this in case it gives Putin (who clearly lurks here) ideas for Ukraine
There was also a desire amongst some Holocaust survivors who demanded a like for like reaction - that the only way to prevent any future atrocity on that scale was to show that retribution would be meted and therefore demanded the death of six million Germans. They tried to do this firstly by poisoning the water in Nuremburg (in part as an artistic irony associated with the myths of Jews poisoning wells) - and got surprisingly far in that plot - and when that failed they moved to attacking SS prisoners of war (including poisoning the bread in one prison which led to many sick / dead Germans).
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
Homoeopathy and similar "alternative" "medicine".
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
Sex denialism ie that biological sex exists, cannot be changed and has consequences for health, sport, crime, all aspects of life really. Infests all political parties - and has led to some truly awful policy positions being adopted though there is some rowing back now.
Vaccine denial also seems to be a thing among some too.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
Homoeopathy and similar "alternative" "medicine".
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
I can agree that lots of political parties certainly act and have policies that hold those incorrect beliefs or deny the scientific consensus on those topics. I would argue their significance, but sure.
Which British parties deny geological time? Like, I would accept that as a criticism of the GOP - but do any of the UK parties actively deny it?
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
So essentially you refuse to give me examples of what you mean, wait for a response of mine that you can use to dismiss having this conversation, and then take victory? And this is a mindset that has inherited Enlightenment values?
If you think that I am wrong you could explain. And again, even if I was too dim to get it, the act of explanation could convince the others in the audience. Thereby convincing people in the market place of ideas of the superiority of your ideas.
Last night you consistently misspelled hindrance as “hinderance”. I don’t normally bring up typos or mis-spells as it is trivial but
1. You are requesting evidence of your unintelligence
And
2. You claim to work in education, so spelling matters
And you misspelt delegitimising as deligitimising. That to me isn't a sign of unintelligence - it's a sign that English is a language that has evolved over a long time and doesn't follow nice patterns of rules like many other languages do.
Relying on the misspelling of one word a few times to label me unintelligent, on the other hand, especially when you in this thread have misspelt words - does shout an insincerity in your argument.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
Homoeopathy and similar "alternative" "medicine".
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
I can agree that lots of political parties certainly act and have policies that hold those incorrect beliefs or deny the scientific consensus on those topics. I would argue their significance, but sure.
Which British parties deny geological time? Like, I would accept that as a criticism of the GOP - but do any of the UK parties actively deny it?
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think you may have missed the point. The conversion of an existing state into an agrarian economy and the displacements of its people has several historical precedents. The first one I thought of was the Morgenthau Plan. The one @Nigelb thought of was Generalplan Ost. All of which are specifically designed to cause millions of deaths.
I know all that. I was simply pointing out that Ukraine is valuable for quite other reasons - something that is missed in the discussions about why Russia is fighting for it. Most of those deposits are, I understand, in the Eastern part of the country.
Ukraine has the potential to be one of the richest countries in Europe. If free and in charge of its own destiny.
The theory that war is theft writ large has many adherents (the technothriller author Tom Clancy is the first one I thought of). However other theories are available, and I like the one expounded by Peter Zeihan, namely that it's a security issue and an attempt to reclaim Soviet glories. In fact I wrote an article about it.
Rather sadly, a third theory also occurs. Russia has a nasty demographic problem leading to a population collapse. By invading Ukraine and literally stealing its children (rumors of up to 100,000) and transplanting them to Russia, Putin is going some way to securing Russia's future.
New medical schools on the way - but Labour says they already exist
Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Barclay will announce an expansion of NHS training and funding of new technology in the health service.
He will also announce new medical schools in Worcester, Chester and Uxbridge, as well as an increase in the number of places up and down the country for students wanting to train to be doctors.
"Suella Braverman will announce today a lifetime ban on sex offenders changing their name and gender in an attempt to close a loophole that is allowing criminals to evade the sex offence register."
It has cross-party support. Sarah Champion, the Labour MP, has long campaigned for this. So I hope it goes through.
Not convinced - wouldn’t an obligation to re-register u see the new name (with a link to their old name) be preferable to adding an additional punishment outwith the jurisdiction of the courts?
It's not a punishment. There is an existing loophole. That loophole needs to be closed by placing an obligation on those authorities which register changes of identity to link this to the DBS process. There is little point putting another obligation on sex offenders when they are already failing to comply with their existing ones.
So a sex offender can change their name but when they get a driving licence in their new name that is linked to the previous name and the new name goes on the sex offenders' register. So even if the sex offender fails to notify the register of his new name, this is still picked up by the screening process.
What is wrong with that?
Very necessary because currently sex offenders are exploiting the loopholes, gaining access to children and offending again.
That sounds rather different to a "lifetime ban on change of name". Is what you say about linking the old name to the new name what is actually being proposed?
Is this an "edge case" situation, or is there actually a significant proportion of ex offenders changing their name *and* going on to reoffend? I think in this era of Google, I can understand why a reforned/rehabilitated ex offender might want to change their name, bearing in mind how hard it can be for people with criminal convictions to get work, even in job roles where they present no more risk than the next person.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
Homoeopathy and similar "alternative" "medicine".
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
I can agree that lots of political parties certainly act and have policies that hold those incorrect beliefs or deny the scientific consensus on those topics. I would argue their significance, but sure.
Which British parties deny geological time? Like, I would accept that as a criticism of the GOP - but do any of the UK parties actively deny it?
Something that occured to me is that if the Tories are attacking policies/law that don't exist or nobody is proposing to make law — meat taxes, 15 minute cities, 7 bin recycling — the the Tory internal polling for attacks against real Labour and Lib Dem policies must be appallingly bad to resort to such lows. They must be getting polling that tells them that across the board the public prefers the alternative.
If party members alone decided the next Conservative leader then Farage would certainly be a strong contender alongside Badenoch.
However you also have to be a Conservative MP to stand for leader and Farage isn't, nor does he have much chance of getting on the approved list of candidates from the Sunak CCHQ.
Tory MPs also get the final say on who gets put to the members too and last time Badenoch didn't even make the last three with Tory MPs. That makes someone like Steve Barclay a more likely contender
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
Genius move. With the cancellation of the rest of the network we won't need a separate Euston high speed station. Exit the tunnels on Camden bank, let the 3 trains an hour use platform 15 which is already long enough, and sell off the land corruptly to developers to ensure that Keith Donkey can never resurrect his evil HS2 scheme.
New medical schools on the way - but Labour says they already exist
Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Barclay will announce an expansion of NHS training and funding of new technology in the health service.
He will also announce new medical schools in Worcester, Chester and Uxbridge, as well as an increase in the number of places up and down the country for students wanting to train to be doctors.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
So essentially you refuse to give me examples of what you mean, wait for a response of mine that you can use to dismiss having this conversation, and then take victory? And this is a mindset that has inherited Enlightenment values?
If you think that I am wrong you could explain. And again, even if I was too dim to get it, the act of explanation could convince the others in the audience. Thereby convincing people in the market place of ideas of the superiority of your ideas.
Last night you consistently misspelled hindrance as “hinderance”. I don’t normally bring up typos or mis-spells as it is trivial but
1. You are requesting evidence of your unintelligence
And
2. You claim to work in education, so spelling matters
Leon, this is desperate stuff. Just answer the reasonable questions. I would also like to know. This crops up regularly and are never given coherent answers.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
There are science deniers all over the political spectrum - in every political party in this country, in fact.
Depressing.
Yes - no political party takes the scientific line of the significance of climate change. But Leon specifically was comparing "wokeness" to Trump, and Trump is the standard bearer for the GOP - an actively anti science, anti Enlightenment party. The GOP (the party functionally, not necessarily everyone who votes for it) is a coalition of business interests and christofascists.
Science denying is not just limited to denying climate change. As you well know.
What other significant antiscientific positions are political parties taking? I can think of antivaxxerism at the moment as a particular issue. But outside of that, I can't think of much.
Homoeopathy and similar "alternative" "medicine".
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
Sex denialism ie that biological sex exists, cannot be changed and has consequences for health, sport, crime, all aspects of life really. Infests all political parties - and has led to some truly awful policy positions being adopted though there is some rowing back now.
Vaccine denial also seems to be a thing among some too.
Anyway must be off.
Have a good day all.
Biological sex exists - I don't think people disagree with this as much as feel that the definitions most people use are not based in a scientific reality and instead in a cultural one; and that the characteristics used to define these do not sit on a mere binary but on a bimodal scale that produces people not easily categorised in our cultural binary view. Cannot be changed? Depends on your definitions on biological sex - if you accept that biological sex is the way that your body interacts with hormones... this can definitely be changed. People can take cross sex hormones and their body will change - people assigned male at birth can naturally grow breasts that would be more typical on someone assigned female at birth. Consequences for health? Again, nobody denies that there are consequences on health for transition - both positive and negative. But all things come with health consequences - I take antidepressants that (in the first 2-4 weeks of taking them) are more likely to increase suicidality than decrease it; but in the long term they reduce it. Other side effects (like the shift in my sleep pattern) are negative, but better than wanting to die all the time. Same with other medicine - no one without cancer should take chemotherapy, it is literal poison; for people with cancer it is still poison, but a kind of poison that typically harms the cancerous cells more than the healthy cells.
I would personally suggest that crime and sport are societal in nature - there is no scientific definition of football or theft, for example. We can look at the fact more men commit crime and ask if that is a biological trait or a social trait (I personally believe it is a social trait) but what constitutes a crime or constitutes a sport is not a scientific process.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
Well what a whopping cop out.
Could it be you can't answer the question?
I’ve explained MULTIPLE times on here exactly why Woke is new and dangerous and way way way more menacing than “PC gone mad”. I’ve said it so often and explained it in such detail I’ve been told to shut up by others on PB
I’m sitting at a lunch table on a beach in the Maldives. I really can’t be arsed to explain it all AGAIN just to satisfy some quasi-literate woke nitwit who won’t grasp what I’m saying anyway
If you want to read my previous posts on this subject, ask @heathener - she apparently archives and screenshots my comments
I see we are told which county cancelled the pangolins, a nice bit of nominative determinism there, but not *why*:
'Manatee County removed the book from district libraries, citing Florida Statute 1006.40(3)(d). However, section (3)(d) does not appear to exist under Florida Statute 1006.40, which is titled "Purchase of instructional materials."
When asked for clarity and for a full copy of the objection, Manatee County did not respond in time for publication'
Just listen to Sunak's recent interviews, this guy has the potential to be a worse leader than Truss, and run a worse campaign than May. He's way out of his depth.
Apparently the atmosphere is 'great' according to Rishi.
Reminds me a lot of the last episode of series one of I'm Alan Partridge, where he hosts a depressing, poorly attended party in his Travel Tavern bedroom, which falls apart in drunken arguments and casual racism.
Imagining Rishi and Suella in the Alan and Lynn roles, tidying up GMEX to the strains of the Black Beauty theme.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
So essentially you refuse to give me examples of what you mean, wait for a response of mine that you can use to dismiss having this conversation, and then take victory? And this is a mindset that has inherited Enlightenment values?
If you think that I am wrong you could explain. And again, even if I was too dim to get it, the act of explanation could convince the others in the audience. Thereby convincing people in the market place of ideas of the superiority of your ideas.
Last night you consistently misspelled hindrance as “hinderance”. I don’t normally bring up typos or mis-spells as it is trivial but
1. You are requesting evidence of your unintelligence
And
2. You claim to work in education, so spelling matters
Bro when you start using full stops properly you can lecture the rest of us on our spelling and grammar.
Sex denialism ie that biological sex exists, cannot be changed...
Pointing out the obvious: genes can't be changed, but genitals can and have been (sound of chainsaw in background).
A few years ago during my enforced purdah I thought of writing several articles, two or three of which would have been about trans. Although now abandoned, one of them would have revolved around analysing the factions as political factions (pre-2015, gender ideology, gender critical) and noting the terms specific to each faction - shibboleths, in other words. "Biological sex" is one of them, displacing the prior "genetic sex".
The intent was to plot their prevalence over time (I thought of using the British Newspaper Archive, but in practice it would have been Google) and thereby track the rise and fall of each faction. If I ever get free time (hah!) I'll try to resurrect it before I forget it all.
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
Genius move. With the cancellation of the rest of the network we won't need a separate Euston high speed station. Exit the tunnels on Camden bank, let the 3 trains an hour use platform 15 which is already long enough, and sell off the land corruptly to developers to ensure that Keith Donkey can never resurrect his evil HS2 scheme.
It's a good point actually.
Presumably there will still be HS2 services to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Preston....
Just that the trains will rejoin the WCML much further south than was originally planned.
Those 'classic compatible' services will still need platforms at Euston.
There will also need to be a fair few more trains that was originally planned and a lot more staff to operate them.
A set of trains averaging 300km/h require far fewer trains and staff to operate them than a set of trains averaging 150km/h.
There will be a fair bit of extra capital costs, the trains, and operational costs, the staff, if the decision is to cancel the faster section from Brum to Manc.
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
Genius move. With the cancellation of the rest of the network we won't need a separate Euston high speed station. Exit the tunnels on Camden bank, let the 3 trains an hour use platform 15 which is already long enough, and sell off the land corruptly to developers to ensure that Keith Donkey can never resurrect his evil HS2 scheme.
Then we can have a proper HS2 through station - not terminus - in the railway lands north of KX and St P. The situation is so screwed up that demolishing a few acres of Camden won't make it any worse, and is worth it to sort it all out.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
Well what a whopping cop out.
Could it be you can't answer the question?
I’ve explained MULTIPLE times on here exactly why Woke is new and dangerous and way way way more menacing than “PC gone mad”. I’ve said it so often and explained it in such detail I’ve been told to shut up by others on PB
I’m sitting at a lunch table on a beach in the Maldives. I really can’t be arsed to explain it all AGAIN just to satisfy some quasi-literate woke nitwit who won’t grasp what I’m saying anyway
If you want to read my previous posts on this subject, ask @heathener - she apparently archives and screenshots my comments
Cheers
"I can't be bothered to repeat my previous incoherence."
I see we are told which county cancelled the pangolins, a nice bit of nominative determinism there, but not *why*:
'Manatee County removed the book from district libraries, citing Florida Statute 1006.40(3)(d). However, section (3)(d) does not appear to exist under Florida Statute 1006.40, which is titled "Purchase of instructional materials."
When asked for clarity and for a full copy of the objection, Manatee County did not respond in time for publication'
You think it's just the manatees being jealous of another cute but obscure mammal getting any publicity?
Basically: a plan to depopulate Ukraine, deport its people to the east, and turn the country into an agrarian land, incapable of being an independent country.
Forget the agrarian stuff...
I think you may have missed the point. The conversion of an existing state into an agrarian economy and the displacements of its people has several historical precedents. The first one I thought of was the Morgenthau Plan. The one @Nigelb thought of was Generalplan Ost. All of which are specifically designed to cause millions of deaths.
I know all that. I was simply pointing out that Ukraine is valuable for quite other reasons - something that is missed in the discussions about why Russia is fighting for it. Most of those deposits are, I understand, in the Eastern part of the country.
Ukraine has the potential to be one of the richest countries in Europe. If free and in charge of its own destiny.
The theory that war is theft writ large has many adherents (the technothriller author Tom Clancy is the first one I thought of). However other theories are available, and I like the one expounded by Peter Zeihan, namely that it's a security issue and an attempt to reclaim Soviet glories. In fact I wrote an article about it.
Rather sadly, a third theory also occurs. Russia has a nasty demographic problem leading to a population collapse. By invading Ukraine and literally stealing its children (rumors of up to 100,000) and transplanting them to Russia, Putin is going some way to securing Russia's future.
Russia would have better off SMOing Khazakstan instead of Ukraine if they were trying to fix a population problem. Ukraine's demographics are a disaster. It's basically a country of old women in clumpy shoes and platoks.
If you take away the ones who've gone on the run to the West/Russia and the occupied/liberated (delete as your inner shill compels) territory then remainder is probably down to half of the 50+m people they had in 1992.
Hs2 is a monumental cock up but its particularly frustrating that the whole "London to Brum and no further" narrative has taken hold. As far as i know, phase 1 being built now runs from London to the existing West Coast at Lichfield with a spur into Birmingham.
So the plan was always for HS trains to run to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc on the brand new line as far as Lichfield then on the existing WC lines thereafter. I read last week that even if phase 2a and 2b never happens, Manchester to London will be 1.5 hrs rather than 2h10, and completely bypass the knackered and over congested hell that is the WCL between Rugby and Euston - the source of 99% of my London/Mcr train issues over the last 23 years of using it.
Yet all the media and political opponent spin is that canceling 2a and 2b means an expensive white elephant for London to Brum and naff all for the rest of the UK. But that's simply not right is it, unless I'm missing something?
I do think it should be built in full as planned, but i can see some attraction in pausing 2a and 2b indefinitely to spend the money on immediate improvements for commuters in the wider North.
Maybe that's what the comms plan was for Rishi until the leak blew that out of the water?
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
Well what a whopping cop out.
Could it be you can't answer the question?
I’ve explained MULTIPLE times on here exactly why Woke is new and dangerous and way way way more menacing than “PC gone mad”. I’ve said it so often and explained it in such detail I’ve been told to shut up by others on PB
I’m sitting at a lunch table on a beach in the Maldives. I really can’t be arsed to explain it all AGAIN just to satisfy some quasi-literate woke nitwit who won’t grasp what I’m saying anyway
If you want to read my previous posts on this subject, ask @heathener - she apparently archives and screenshots my comments
Cheers
Semi literate? Apparently hinderance isn't even incorrect - it's just a variant archaic spelling!
And I was just assuming you were correct, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just like how your misspelling of delegitimising as deligitimising seems to be a use of international English use (apparently American spelling would also change the s into a z, but I can see uses in some African and European publications of an i and no z).
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
So essentially you refuse to give me examples of what you mean, wait for a response of mine that you can use to dismiss having this conversation, and then take victory? And this is a mindset that has inherited Enlightenment values?
If you think that I am wrong you could explain. And again, even if I was too dim to get it, the act of explanation could convince the others in the audience. Thereby convincing people in the market place of ideas of the superiority of your ideas.
Last night you consistently misspelled hindrance as “hinderance”. I don’t normally bring up typos or mis-spells as it is trivial but
1. You are requesting evidence of your unintelligence
And
2. You claim to work in education, so spelling matters
Bro when you start using full stops properly you can lecture the rest of us on our spelling and grammar.
Leon is a mere knapper. Unfair to judge him on his writing skills..
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
Genius move. With the cancellation of the rest of the network we won't need a separate Euston high speed station. Exit the tunnels on Camden bank, let the 3 trains an hour use platform 15 which is already long enough, and sell off the land corruptly to developers to ensure that Keith Donkey can never resurrect his evil HS2 scheme.
It's a good point actually.
Presumably there will still be HS2 services to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Preston....
Just that the trains will rejoin the WCML much further south than was originally planned.
Those 'classic compatible' services will still need platforms at Euston.
There will also need to be a fair few more trains that was originally planned and a lot more staff to operate them.
A set of trains averaging 300km/h require far fewer trains and staff to operate them than a set of trains averaging 150km/h.
There will be a fair bit of extra capital costs, the trains, and operational costs, the staff, if the decision is to cancel the faster section from Brum to Manc.
Unless the announcement is going to be a surprise, there is no connection to the WCML. That was north of the delta junction and that whole section is supposedly being cancelled...
Did y’all hear the recent episode of More or Less, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ggvbxq (it’s at the end of the episode), on HS2 and big infrastructure problems being expensive in the UK. They talked to a researcher who’s done an international comparison and concluded that big infrastructure projects all around the world often have overspends but that UK projects are no worse on average. We’re not exceptionally bad at these things.
However, HS2 is a mess and massively over-budget, which the interviewee put down to plans being repeatedly changed after work had started. He said that’s the main cause of extra expense.
The more or less episode was enlightening - funnily enough this morning R4 had a spokesman for a big building company who obviously hadn’t listened to MoL and was spouting crap about how none of this happened in any other country.
More interesting was the interview with the chap who ran HS1 and was head of Crossrail (Rob Bowman I think?) who made a few very interesting points, namely:
HS1 was designed and built for the French high speed rail tech and so all the kit and engineering was “out of the box” so cost a huge amount less.
With HS1 they did not divulge the overall budget, only a handful of people knew the ceiling and so when bids went in people didn’t go crazy having seen the billions on offer. He compared it to Crossrail where the budget was announced and similar jobs from HS1 were suddenly multiples more expensive.
He explained that for some reason HS2 was planned as a 400KPH line rather than 340KPH (I think he said) which was the European standard and so everything then becomes grossly more expensive because engineering had to be developed to accommodate the extra speed and huge costly measures had to be added to mitigate the extra noise issues this would cause.
From here and all the media it seems there are a million different views, cancel or continue, change this bit or that hit, it’s vital, it’s not. If there is no way near a consensus then surely the best thing is to pause, rework it in a sensible way that makes it more useful, acceptable and affordable. There is no point continuing to pour money into a mistake I would have thought. See what can be cut if they lower the speed requirement, see what has been done already and where it can be used as it is until a sensible plan is ready.
The cynic in me wonders if the custom spec for HS2 was a reaction to HS1 - got to get those costs up somehow.
Some years back, I met a very angry sales guy from BAe. The F35 program hadn’t been customised (enough) to “unique British requirements”. So if a weapon is qualified to fit one F35B, it will be included in the next software update for all F35B - internationally. Worse, the US Marine Corps squadrons operating off the U.K. carriers would include instructors in their weapons - so U.K. pilots could end up trained on such weapons.
All this added up, in the opinion of the sales guy to a disaster - his area was selling integration and training for weapons being bought for U.K. military aircraft.
I would guess the spec for HS2 was that politician says “I want the best fast train service in the world so I can say we have a world leading rail service” and then a load of people google “fastest trains” and find that 400KPH is at least faster than all the European ones so they start there instead of saying “we need to free up capacity on existing lines and have a faster service, how do we best get that, is speed or capacity the priority, how can we build it with existing kit and which are the priority routes.”
There just seems to be a lack of any thought that you can save shitloads of money adapting off the shelf kit (see the military too) but also this obsession with wanting a “world beating” something and then working towards that rather than simply saying “what do we really need without perfect being the enemy of good” and then working towards that.
IIRC the reason for 400km/h provision was that, although current trains are slower, many countries are looking at 400km/h. Given the fifteen or so years it would take to build HS2, by the time it was opened, other countries would have 400km/h lines and trains.
So what ? Given the distances involved, any cost benefit analysis would have shown it wasn't worth it.
And as you regularly remind us, it was in any event about capacity, not speed.
It is, indeed. But evidently a cost benefit analysis did show it was worth it - and remember, it's a line being built to run not for five years, but for many, many decades.
Lets see a rational, independent cost benefit analysis that shows a custom spec of 400km/h over a less than 400km distance is worthwhile over an off the shelf 300 or similar standard spec?
And then people cry that its "capacity" that matters, but that supposedly this unique spec is necessary too, make your minds up.
I might suggest you read my post from yesterday, outlining how the project came about. It is about capacity, but if you're building a new route, best to make it as future-proof as possible.
I expect you'd be happy with a new motorway being built that had only one lane in each direction, and a 10MPH speed limit on it?
What future? In the future is Manchester no longer going to be less than 200 miles away from London? In the future are London and Manchester going to be 2,000 miles apart where these speeds might make a difference?
I know some Britons struggle with metric, but 300km/h != 10 miles per hour.
If we finally get a Government that invests in new motorway capacity, then given a choice I would rather twice as much new capacity built to a 70 mile per hour speed limit than half as much new capacity built to a 400km/h speed limit.
Instead of an absurd 400km/h London to Manchester route far better future proofing would have been a 300km/h London to Glasgow route stopping at Manchester and Birmingham - and possibly other cities too like Preston.
That would have added far more capacity at a comparable price using off the shelf specs.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
The journey is pretty simple. Take the most extreme woke things that are happening in the world, some of which are indeed bonkers. See that most young people consider themselves woke. Get scared most young people want the bonkers extreme things to be commonplace.
It is not reality but a story easily told in echo chambers.
I would just like an example of "extreme woke things" and an explanation of how they are woke, and how they will lead to the end of the "western world".
The Trans Woke Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs will infiltrate all levels of government and steal our Vital Essence. Within 15 minutes of your home, as well.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
It probably does not soothe you to know that Matthew Goodwin explicitly prefers "PC gone mad" to "woke" or its variants because it's not understood on the doorstep. People with everyday concerns are not as widely read in multiple concurrent end-of-the-West theories as you are.
Did y’all hear the recent episode of More or Less, https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ggvbxq (it’s at the end of the episode), on HS2 and big infrastructure problems being expensive in the UK. They talked to a researcher who’s done an international comparison and concluded that big infrastructure projects all around the world often have overspends but that UK projects are no worse on average. We’re not exceptionally bad at these things.
However, HS2 is a mess and massively over-budget, which the interviewee put down to plans being repeatedly changed after work had started. He said that’s the main cause of extra expense.
The more or less episode was enlightening - funnily enough this morning R4 had a spokesman for a big building company who obviously hadn’t listened to MoL and was spouting crap about how none of this happened in any other country.
More interesting was the interview with the chap who ran HS1 and was head of Crossrail (Rob Bowman I think?) who made a few very interesting points, namely:
HS1 was designed and built for the French high speed rail tech and so all the kit and engineering was “out of the box” so cost a huge amount less.
With HS1 they did not divulge the overall budget, only a handful of people knew the ceiling and so when bids went in people didn’t go crazy having seen the billions on offer. He compared it to Crossrail where the budget was announced and similar jobs from HS1 were suddenly multiples more expensive.
He explained that for some reason HS2 was planned as a 400KPH line rather than 340KPH (I think he said) which was the European standard and so everything then becomes grossly more expensive because engineering had to be developed to accommodate the extra speed and huge costly measures had to be added to mitigate the extra noise issues this would cause.
From here and all the media it seems there are a million different views, cancel or continue, change this bit or that hit, it’s vital, it’s not. If there is no way near a consensus then surely the best thing is to pause, rework it in a sensible way that makes it more useful, acceptable and affordable. There is no point continuing to pour money into a mistake I would have thought. See what can be cut if they lower the speed requirement, see what has been done already and where it can be used as it is until a sensible plan is ready.
The cynic in me wonders if the custom spec for HS2 was a reaction to HS1 - got to get those costs up somehow.
Some years back, I met a very angry sales guy from BAe. The F35 program hadn’t been customised (enough) to “unique British requirements”. So if a weapon is qualified to fit one F35B, it will be included in the next software update for all F35B - internationally. Worse, the US Marine Corps squadrons operating off the U.K. carriers would include instructors in their weapons - so U.K. pilots could end up trained on such weapons.
All this added up, in the opinion of the sales guy to a disaster - his area was selling integration and training for weapons being bought for U.K. military aircraft.
I would guess the spec for HS2 was that politician says “I want the best fast train service in the world so I can say we have a world leading rail service” and then a load of people google “fastest trains” and find that 400KPH is at least faster than all the European ones so they start there instead of saying “we need to free up capacity on existing lines and have a faster service, how do we best get that, is speed or capacity the priority, how can we build it with existing kit and which are the priority routes.”
There just seems to be a lack of any thought that you can save shitloads of money adapting off the shelf kit (see the military too) but also this obsession with wanting a “world beating” something and then working towards that rather than simply saying “what do we really need without perfect being the enemy of good” and then working towards that.
IIRC the reason for 400km/h provision was that, although current trains are slower, many countries are looking at 400km/h. Given the fifteen or so years it would take to build HS2, by the time it was opened, other countries would have 400km/h lines and trains.
So what ? Given the distances involved, any cost benefit analysis would have shown it wasn't worth it.
And as you regularly remind us, it was in any event about capacity, not speed.
It is, indeed. But evidently a cost benefit analysis did show it was worth it - and remember, it's a line being built to run not for five years, but for many, many decades.
Lets see a rational, independent cost benefit analysis that shows a custom spec of 400km/h over a less than 400km distance is worthwhile over an off the shelf 300 or similar standard spec?
And then people cry that its "capacity" that matters, but that supposedly this unique spec is necessary too, make your minds up.
I might suggest you read my post from yesterday, outlining how the project came about. It is about capacity, but if you're building a new route, best to make it as future-proof as possible.
I expect you'd be happy with a new motorway being built that had only one lane in each direction, and a 10MPH speed limit on it?
What future? In the future is Manchester no longer going to be less than 200 miles away from London? In the future are London and Manchester going to be 2,000 miles apart where these speeds might make a difference?
I know some Britons struggle with metric, but 300km/h != 10 miles per hour.
If we finally get a Government that invests in new motorway capacity, then given a choice I would rather twice as much new capacity built to a 70 mile per hour speed limit than half as much new capacity built to a 400km/h speed limit.
Instead of an absurd 400km/h London to Manchester route far better future proofing would have been a 300km/h London to Glasgow route stopping at Manchester and Birmingham - and possibly other cities too like Preston.
That would have added far more capacity at a comparable price using off the shelf specs.
You're plucking figures out of thin air and drawing crayon lines on a map.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
The journey is pretty simple. Take the most extreme woke things that are happening in the world, some of which are indeed bonkers. See that most young people consider themselves woke. Get scared most young people want the bonkers extreme things to be commonplace.
It is not reality but a story easily told in echo chambers.
I would just like an example of "extreme woke things" and an explanation of how they are woke, and how they will lead to the end of the "western world".
The Trans Woke Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs will infiltrate all levels of government and steal our Vital Essence. Within 15 minutes of your home, as well.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
It probably does not soothe you to know that Matthew Goodwin explicitly prefers "PC gone mad" to "woke" or its variants because it's not understood on the doorstep. People with everyday concerns are not as widely read in multiple concurrent end-of-the-West theories as you are.
I’ve been reading about the New York fraud court case against Trump. It seems to me that it is wrong, and, worse than that, it is a mistake
It screams “political persecution” - as it is brought and led by a highly political controversial Democrat lawyer in NYC. It feeds into Trump’s martyr narrative (“they’re out to get me AND you”). It gives him a pulpit to address the nation daily
It’s gonna aid him. They should have stuck with the J6 trials elsewhere etc. This new case is a grave error which makes a Trump victory more likely
Of course you think this, you’re basically a Trumpite yourself these days.
*weary sigh*
No, I don’t want Trump to win. My ideal would be for both Trump and Biden to disappear from the world of politics. They are both old, selfish men past their time
Personally I’d like a good tough Republican President who will stick to America’s allies - like the UK, Ukraine, and NATO in general. Trump won’t do that. I want him gone
But he needs to be defeated democratically. For that the Dems should kick out Biden and get a better candidate (as the GOP seem determined to nominate Trump)
Is that clear enough?
But you're shimmying round the killer question with the elegance of a Strictly contestant. Whether that's Bill Bailey or Richard Coles, I don't know.
Trump-Biden is a dismal choice. But it looks very likely to be the choice. So, taking it as read that AN Other would be preferable, on both sides, who do you go for?
You can vote against one of them. Who do you want to fire your one bullet at?
Trump
However this is a much tougher question for me than it is for most PB-ers. I believe the Democrats and their Wokeness (which they export to us, in hideous forms) are a long term threat to western security and prosperity. It is that bad
However Trump is the SHORT term threat to western security, and if your choice is to shoot one of two dangerous Bully XL dogs then you shoot the one that’s closest to biting your head off. In this case, that’s Trump
Wokeness is a bigger threat to "western security" than Trumpism? How? I still haven't heard a decent definition of wokeness that isn't just "everything right wingers hate" (unless we mean the actual historic use of the term by the African American community).
The end of Free Speech, the reversal of the Enlightenment, the re-racialisation and further division of society, the warping of education to meet Woke goals, the crippling of science for similar reasons, the indoctrination of our kids with mad woke bollocks, the crimping of industry with mad woke “targets”, the deligitimising of western values, history, prestige and pride, and in the end the total annihilation of a woke-weakened west
Let’s start there
So this Gish gallop of conclusions is missing how "wokeness" leads to these thing, and also automatically assumes all of these things are universally agreed as of value. Can you explain the causal link between what you understand as wokeness and, say, the "reversal of the Enlightenment"? Or "the warping of education to meet Woke goals"? Does Free Speech include the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech, libel? It would be useful to know the detail of this journey rather than just the image of a right wing fever dream to understand how "wokeness" achieves all these revolutionary changes.
Attempting to engage Leon with logic won't get you anywhere.
I really want to know, though. In my mind "woke" seems to have just replaced "PC gone mad", and I don't see how that is the "End of the West". I would like to understand the A to B to C journey for that; even if it is mad. Because I don't see how christofascist science deniers can be the inheritors of "the Enlightenment" nor "the crippling of science".
Anyone who is dim enough to seriously believe “woke is just a replacement for PC gone mad” is so dim they wouldn’t understand any explanation as to why that is dismally wrong. So it is pointless me wasting my time explaining to you
I hope that helps
Well what a whopping cop out.
Could it be you can't answer the question?
I’ve explained MULTIPLE times on here exactly why Woke is new and dangerous and way way way more menacing than “PC gone mad”. I’ve said it so often and explained it in such detail I’ve been told to shut up by others on PB
I’m sitting at a lunch table on a beach in the Maldives. I really can’t be arsed to explain it all AGAIN just to satisfy some quasi-literate woke nitwit who won’t grasp what I’m saying anyway
If you want to read my previous posts on this subject, ask @heathener - she apparently archives and screenshots my comments
Cheers
Why do you think none of us get it? PBers are a pretty bright lot yet it only seems you and Casino get it.
We can't be all that dim.
Woke is the sort of stuff that really irritates me, but I don't see the mass threat.
Comments
Depressing.
And then people cry that its "capacity" that matters, but that supposedly this unique spec is necessary too, make your minds up.
What is certain is that if the decision is to cancel then the explanation and alternative investments are going to have to stand up to public scrutiny
It is not reality but a story easily told in echo chambers.
I expect you'd be happy with a new motorway being built that had only one lane in each direction, and a 10MPH speed limit on it?
I was thinking before I read it to write up a critical review of it for PB (after all, the end of capitalism is something that communists have long predicted), but I found the arguments of fact strangely persuasive. So I may need to reread it.
So they turned it in the X-33 project with *all* the new technologies possible.
It failed of course, after some billions were spent. But hey, it was interesting.
I AM SCRAPPING HS2 - announced in Manchester. Cheers from the handful of Tory activists in the hall, furore outside. Andy Street resigns from the party flanked by Andy Burnham at an impromptu press conference called outside the conference centre
I AM NOT SCRAPPING HS2 - muted applause from the hall, furore outside. Tory grandees line up alongside Andy Street to condemn the chaos of the last week
I HAVEN"T DECIDED WHETHER TO SCRAP HS2 - silence from the hall as activists are outside having their picture taken with Nigel Farage.
I don't get it. How can they be this inept?
I know it's not the Maldives but I will try to take pictures of Glasgow rain and Carlisle rain in the most becoming way possible.
I hope these train journeys will work at least .....
The trains could run at 360km/h, the same as modern similar length services in Europe, this extra speed enabled the train to try to catch up if running behind schedule.
The 400km/h was purely straighter tracks, nothing else, the physics of going around a corner with a tight radius at high speed means the train topples over at some point.
HS2 will last for decades and decades, at some point 400km/h trains from London to Edinburgh may have ran in them, taking all those flights away.
The extra cost of slightly less sharp curves is absolutely minimal in the scheme overall.
Public transport networks will probably just tell them to go whistle.
I hope that helps
You could find some sort of external funding in order to pass the project (as suggested by Street) or the Range Rover, on to a third party. Either way you must save your up front deposit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-66989669
Ukraine has the potential to be one of the richest countries in Europe. If free and in charge of its own destiny.
Priti Patel, the former home secretary, said any move to cancel the northern leg would be a “pretty drastic step forward”, adding: “I think there’s a lot of questions to ask about how he reached that decision. What kind of work have they done, what kind of analysis, what kind of assumptions? And have they actually gone into all the scenarios around viability?”
I almost choked on my fruit'n'fibre.
As for the Conservatives, they have survived a lot in the past. But FPTP has a nasty cliff edge in the high twenties percent. But that's not the claim.
The claim is that we'd rather spend the money on something else. We don't know what that is, but it will have to be damn good to make up for the money wasted on aborting HS2 Manc.
Actually, given how many of the other big reveals this conference have turned out to be wibble, how much difference can Rishi make here? Most of the spending will be a decade down the line, so presumably it doesn't release much money for him to spend now anyway.
How poisonous is the pill of Sunak cancelling HS2 Manc and a successor reinstating it?
If you think that I am wrong you could explain. And again, even if I was too dim to get it, the act of explanation could convince the others in the audience. Thereby convincing people in the market place of ideas of the superiority of your ideas.
So many different groups want different things from it, high speed commuting, extra freight capacity, tunnels so my house price isn’t affected but I get the benefits when I want a quicker train to London, etc etc.
Sometimes just better to go back to the drawing board and say “we can afford x, what is the best bang we can get for it” explain it and then get on with it.
So a sex offender can change their name but when they get a driving licence in their new name that is linked to the previous name and the new name goes on the sex offenders' register. So even if the sex offender fails to notify the register of his new name, this is still picked up by the screening process.
What is wrong with that?
Very necessary because currently sex offenders are exploiting the loopholes, gaining access to children and offending again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-66989669
Downing St confirming to
@MhariAurora
that the PM’s speech WILL contain HS2 announcement and that it’ll be “worth waiting for” at exactly the same moment he denies all knowledge on a broadcast round…
Views on homosexuality which see it as a pathology rather than part ofd the normal range of variation: ditto trans. (Well, some sure are going to be wrong on the latter.)
Denial that AIDS wasn't specific to male homosexuals.
Denial of Newton's laws of motion (when it comes to railway planning, in particular, and mixing fast and slow trains on the same track).
Refusal to fund adequate science teaching (staff selection, salaries, equipment.
Denial of geological time.
Denial of the science of ecology - notably in the argument that it's OK to cut down ancient woodlands bevcause planting saplings in new made ground will do as a substitute. (Very common at present.)
I think that'll do?
All found in elements of UK political parties, though not all policy of the party as a whole.
Edit: beaten by Viewcode I see.
BBC: "Whatever the decision on HS2, you've got to admit the handling of the announcement has been poor."
Sunak: "No, I don't think that, actually. We're having a great conference."
BBC: "You think it's gone well?"
Sunak: "Yeah, I really do. The mood here is great." 👀~AA
Rishi Sunak’s HS2 announcement tomorrow:
* Scrap the Northern leg of HS2 between Birmingham and Manchester
* A reprieve for the Euston terminus
* All the savings - around £36bn - to be reinvested in regional transport links in Midlands and North
@JenWilliams_FT
Had so many conversations yesterday along the lines of “but why, in Manchester, why would you do this, but why” and can only assume that the PM thinks it is good politics
Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Barclay will announce an expansion of NHS training and funding of new technology in the health service.
He will also announce new medical schools in Worcester, Chester and Uxbridge, as well as an increase in the number of places up and down the country for students wanting to train to be doctors.
However, Labour said the three "new" schools announced already exist, adding the restrictions on the number of government-funded places mean they are only training international students.
https://news.sky.com/story/trans-women-to-be-banned-from-female-hospital-wards-under-new-tory-proposals-12975456
Interesting briefings going on against Suella Braverman at the Midland Hotel.
Last night one spad said: “If you want to be a leader just go and resign and join Liz truss in her rallies.
"Don’t blow things up from the inside it’s so obvious and transparent.”
1. You are requesting evidence of your unintelligence
And
2. You claim to work in education, so spelling matters
Which British parties deny geological time? Like, I would accept that as a criticism of the GOP - but do any of the UK parties actively deny it?
Perhaps I shouldn’t mention this in case it gives Putin (who clearly lurks here) ideas for Ukraine
He has to announce somewhere, the conference is in Manchester, people want announcement urgently. I’m sure you would have been saying it is good politics if he had instead waited until he’s in Downing Street away from the pitchfork wielding hoards in Manchester demanding a very expensive train line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakam
Vaccine denial also seems to be a thing among some too.
Anyway must be off.
Have a good day all.
Could it be you can't answer the question?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/12/northern-ireland-charles-darwin-courts
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/the-dup-and-young-earth-creationism-1.4631627
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/05/national-trust-creationism-giants-causeway
PS Also one strand of support for Tory policy on free schools/academies is the opportunity to impose antiscientific teaching.
Relying on the misspelling of one word a few times to label me unintelligent, on the other hand, especially when you in this thread have misspelt words - does shout an insincerity in your argument.
Rather sadly, a third theory also occurs. Russia has a nasty demographic problem leading to a population collapse. By invading Ukraine and literally stealing its children (rumors of up to 100,000) and transplanting them to Russia, Putin is going some way to securing Russia's future.
https://www1.chester.ac.uk/chester-medical-school
https://www.brunel.ac.uk/brunel-medical-school
Is this an "edge case" situation, or is there actually a significant proportion of ex offenders changing their name *and* going on to reoffend? I think in this era of Google, I can understand why a reforned/rehabilitated ex offender might want to change their name, bearing in mind how hard it can be for people with criminal convictions to get work, even in job roles where they present no more risk than the next person.
Londoners have begged Suella Braverman to close the borders before the French bedbugs can arrive
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/paris-bed-bugs-infestation-london-b2422391.html
The UK government was banning people from speaking at civil service events: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cabinet-office-guidance-speakers-civil-service-cancel-b2346605.html ; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/23/dan-kaszeta-banned-from-uk-government-event-for-tweets-criticised-tories
Tennessee going after book publishers: https://time.com/6277933/state-book-bans-publishers/
Florida bans poem read at Biden's inauguration: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-05-23/amanda-gormans-inaugural-poem-book-bans
Michelangelo's "David" is woke: https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/education/2023/03/23/tallahassee-classical-principal-out-after-complaints-about-david-statue-lesson/70039104007/
Pangolins are woke: https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/11/florida-book-bans-5-surprising-books-pulled-from-school-libraries/70788738007/
Even The Spectator thinks conservatives have gone too far with book bans: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/book-banning-has-come-back-to-bite-us-conservatives/
However you also have to be a Conservative MP to stand for leader and Farage isn't, nor does he have much chance of getting on the approved list of candidates from the Sunak CCHQ.
Tory MPs also get the final say on who gets put to the members too and last time Badenoch didn't even make the last three with Tory MPs. That makes someone like Steve Barclay a more likely contender
I would personally suggest that crime and sport are societal in nature - there is no scientific definition of football or theft, for example. We can look at the fact more men commit crime and ask if that is a biological trait or a social trait (I personally believe it is a social trait) but what constitutes a crime or constitutes a sport is not a scientific process.
I’m sitting at a lunch table on a beach in the Maldives. I really can’t be arsed to explain it all AGAIN just to satisfy some quasi-literate woke nitwit who won’t grasp what I’m saying anyway
If you want to read my previous posts on this subject, ask @heathener - she apparently archives and screenshots my comments
Cheers
'Manatee County removed the book from district libraries, citing Florida Statute 1006.40(3)(d). However, section (3)(d) does not appear to exist under Florida Statute 1006.40, which is titled "Purchase of instructional materials."
When asked for clarity and for a full copy of the objection, Manatee County did not respond in time for publication'
Reminds me a lot of the last episode of series one of I'm Alan Partridge, where he hosts a depressing, poorly attended party in his Travel Tavern bedroom, which falls apart in drunken arguments and casual racism.
Imagining Rishi and Suella in the Alan and Lynn roles, tidying up GMEX to the strains of the Black Beauty theme.
A few years ago during my enforced purdah I thought of writing several articles, two or three of which would have been about trans. Although now abandoned, one of them would have revolved around analysing the factions as political factions (pre-2015, gender ideology, gender critical) and noting the terms specific to each faction - shibboleths, in other words. "Biological sex" is one of them, displacing the prior "genetic sex".
The intent was to plot their prevalence over time (I thought of using the British Newspaper Archive, but in practice it would have been Google) and thereby track the rise and fall of each faction. If I ever get free time (hah!) I'll try to resurrect it before I forget it all.
Presumably there will still be HS2 services to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Preston....
Just that the trains will rejoin the WCML much further south than was originally planned.
Those 'classic compatible' services will still need platforms at Euston.
There will also need to be a fair few more trains that was originally planned and a lot more staff to operate them.
A set of trains averaging 300km/h require far fewer trains and staff to operate them than a set of trains averaging 150km/h.
There will be a fair bit of extra capital costs, the trains, and operational costs, the staff, if the decision is to cancel the faster section from Brum to Manc.
Cheers.
If you take away the ones who've gone on the run to the West/Russia and the occupied/liberated (delete as your inner shill compels) territory then remainder is probably down to half of the 50+m people they had in 1992.
F1: Apple are seeking exclusive TV rights to F1.
https://www.planetf1.com/news/apple-tv-deal-could-shake-up-f1-broadcasting-landscape
So the plan was always for HS trains to run to Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc on the brand new line as far as Lichfield then on the existing WC lines thereafter. I read last week that even if phase 2a and 2b never happens, Manchester to London will be 1.5 hrs rather than 2h10, and completely bypass the knackered and over congested hell that is the WCL between Rugby and Euston - the source of 99% of my London/Mcr train issues over the last 23 years of using it.
Yet all the media and political opponent spin is that canceling 2a and 2b means an expensive white elephant for London to Brum and naff all for the rest of the UK. But that's simply not right is it, unless I'm missing something?
I do think it should be built in full as planned, but i can see some attraction in pausing 2a and 2b indefinitely to spend the money on immediate improvements for commuters in the wider North.
Maybe that's what the comms plan was for Rishi until the leak blew that out of the water?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hinderance
And I was just assuming you were correct, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just like how your misspelling of delegitimising as deligitimising seems to be a use of international English use (apparently American spelling would also change the s into a z, but I can see uses in some African and European publications of an i and no z).
Unfair to judge him on his writing skills..
I know some Britons struggle with metric, but 300km/h != 10 miles per hour.
If we finally get a Government that invests in new motorway capacity, then given a choice I would rather twice as much new capacity built to a 70 mile per hour speed limit than half as much new capacity built to a 400km/h speed limit.
Instead of an absurd 400km/h London to Manchester route far better future proofing would have been a 300km/h London to Glasgow route stopping at Manchester and Birmingham - and possibly other cities too like Preston.
That would have added far more capacity at a comparable price using off the shelf specs.
See this documentary - https://youtu.be/u2ZxBhfwjf0?si=Ak3N-eagwg6wGfyl
We can't be all that dim.
Woke is the sort of stuff that really irritates me, but I don't see the mass threat.