Given that this debate has ruined the enjoyment of PB for more than a fortnight now, was surprised to see it as a thread header.
Getting back to betting, party politics and bantz would be a good move.
Don't worry, I've got a thread on AV/electoral reform lined up.
Little point, even if it was Labour party policy the size of their majority in 2024/25 will put it on the back burner alongside similar House of Lord reforms...
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
I do find it remarkable that out of all of the measures that Kwartang announced that were later recinded by Hunt, this is one fo the few that he has decided to keep!
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
Over a decade ago now - time flies - I did an MA in Terrorism & Security.
The most enduring thing I took from that course is the pithy 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
Like fascism, terrorism is too amorphous, too shape-shifting, too shades-of-grey, too dependent on specific context, to be able to easily and consistently define. You know it when you see it. But when you see it often depends on your perspective. Its tactics are easier to define. The context is the tricky thing.
RT's definition is the one that I use as a first-order approximation. And I think it works pretty well.
I think where we struggle is with the moral angle. We've equated terrorism so long with actions that are morally wrong, that we struggle with calling things terrorism when they've been done as part of a righteous cause.
But there's no contradiction there. If you deliberately target civilians then this is not directly part of a military struggle where you are degrading the enemy's ability to fight back. You're doing so to create terror. It is terrorism. Unless the motivation is to kill all people of a particular group, in which case it is an attempt at genocide.
Personally I would always argue that terrorism should be avoided. I can understand why some people would justify it in some circumstances, but I think that restricting a campaign to military and economic targets is likely to be more effective than a terror campaign - in part because if you are the weaker party in the conflict, the stronger party has the ability to inflict more terror than you.
But those people who would justify it in some circumstances are being cowards to hide from the terrorism label.
Who defines what is morally wrong? When does terrorism become justified? Couldn't a government frame attacks limited to military and economic targets as terrorism? If civilians are killed as collateral damage whilst targeting military or economic targets, is that terrorism?
How oppressed would you have to be before you saw terrorism as justified?
It's like nailing jelly to a wall.
I think we in the West did that in the post war settlement. And it has been something that has been signed up to by the majority of nations around the world. As I said in my piece, proscribing the act rather than the person gets around a lot of these questions. We even have acourt to do it for us.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Given that this debate has ruined the enjoyment of PB for more than a fortnight now, was surprised to see it as a thread header.
Getting back to betting, party politics and bantz would be a good move.
Apologies Anabob. I tried to avoid the detail of the curent crisis in the piece as I thought it was worth discussing the nature of terrorism and whow we define it in a wider context. Sadly it is a fact of life today anmd has an oimpact on every aspect of our lives, not just on Israel and the Palestinians.
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
The problem is most of the damage has already been done. The banks readjusted their compensation packages to align with the rules, with the result that, for many of the people I knew as analysts, their base pay went from £100K to £250K-350K. That was great for them because they traded a large part of their compensation from an uncertain and variable amount influenced by political machinations and who liked you (bonuses) to the certainty of a fixed amount (wages). You can't change that back now given it will be in contracts, people will have gotten mortgages etc off the back of their new base salary.
But, to emphasise, the original rule was badly thought out and typical of what happens when lawyers (ahem) and regulators get to design such measures, namely they do not think of the ripple effects from what they recommend.
This is very true and the change here is going to take many years to filter through as investment funds and hedge funds see enough employee churn to go back to lower base salaries coupled with high OTE as it was when I started vs now middling OTE with a high base salary.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
And no mention of the net +600,000 net inward migration in 2022?
That's all legal migration.
Doesn't matter. There is a nasty core of people out there who think they have been "invaded" if there are people who don't look and sound like them in their town. EU migration was legal, and people still voted to send them home (and in some cases got mildly abusive to them to (successfully) encourage them to leave.
Jenrick is a small-minded fool playing to an audience of parochial bigots. Happily the polls show that not only is the audience shrinking but soon Jenrick and many of his colleagues will be gone.
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
The problem is most of the damage has already been done. The banks readjusted their compensation packages to align with the rules, with the result that, for many of the people I knew as analysts, their base pay went from £100K to £250K-350K. That was great for them because they traded a large part of their compensation from an uncertain and variable amount influenced by political machinations and who liked you (bonuses) to the certainty of a fixed amount (wages). You can't change that back now given it will be in contracts, people will have gotten mortgages etc off the back of their new base salary.
But, to emphasise, the original rule was badly thought out and typical of what happens when lawyers (ahem) and regulators get to design such measures, namely they do not think of the ripple effects from what they recommend.
This is very true and the change here is going to take many years to filter through as investment funds and hedge funds see enough employee churn to go back to lower base salaries coupled with high OTE as it was when I started vs now middling OTE with a high base salary.
Why would you leave a job with a high base salary for a lower base salary with a bonus?
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
This is a really useful thread header. I agree with a lot of it, but I think the overall thrust is wrong. Understandably the topic is quite emotionally loaded and the header seems to be coming from a desire to define terrorism based on whether it is justified/unjustified or to put it in simpler terms, right or wrong. To me, this question is an orthogonal one (and a hard one to answer a lot of the time) to a definitional question of what terrorism is. In my view it is important to focus on the word "terror" - terrorism should be seen as a form of psychological warfare, designed to achieve specific political goals through acts of violence. The IRA's goal was to make the British public question the British state's involvement in Ireland. Al Qaeda's goal was to make the West disengage from the Middle East. Hamas's goal is to make the Israeli public question their state's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and to inflame Arab opinion against Israel to keep the issue on the front page and prevent Arab states from concluding peace deals with Israel that don't address the Palestinians' concerns. Terrorism tends to be carried out by non state actors because it is a form of asymmetrical warfare that tends to be carried out by the weaker partner in the conflict. The stronger partner has other means at their disposal. Israeli attacks on Gaza are therefore not terrorism. Similarly, the bombing of Hamburg or Hiroshima are not terrorism. Whether they are war crimes is a different issue. Whether any of these things are right or wrong is a third question altogether, and one I'm always surprised at how many people feel themselves qualified to answer. In many conflicts it's hard to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. Rather than seeking elusive moral clarity we should focus our efforts on helping both sides to de-escalate and find a lasting peace that removes the underlying causes of the conflict.
While in many conflicts it is surprisingly easy to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. plus in those situations the "source of the conflict" is the fact that the bad guys want conflict. Eg Ukraine was at peace, before Russia invaded. Eg Israel had stopped occupying Gaza and was helping the Palestinians build the Port of Gaza to aid their development before Hamas took over. We can divide some conflicts by saying democratic Ukraine good, authoritarian Russia bad. Similarly democratic Israel good, Islamofascist Hamas bad.
Rather than seeking elusive "de-escalation" in those situations, we should be seeking to aid victory for our allies who are good over those who would do them harm and in victory they can maybe have a lasting peace.
Israel had stopped occupying Gaza, but has been continuing to blockade it. The Netanyahu government has had no interest in Gaza being able to function anything like a normal state, and it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and to build settlements on occupied territory in contravention of international law. Israel continues to discriminate against Arab Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians. And Israeli democracy has been deteriorating under Bibi!
Hamas is, in part, a consequence of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. This is not to condone Hamas's actions, but it is moral naivety not to recognise this context. It is the official policy of the UK government and that of most of our allies that we do not condone Israel's actions in Palestine, that we recognise continued settlement building as being contrary to international law and contrary to hopes for a lasting peace.
Except the facts don't back up that whatsoever. Netanyahu wasn't even in power when Hamas took over Gaza, Ehud Olmert was.
Israel wasn't blockading Gaza prior to the rise of Hamas, quite the opposite. From 2005 to 2007 (when Hamas took over) Israel was not only not blockading Gaza, they were encouraging the development of the Port of Gaza to help Gaza get developed.
Unfortunately then Hamas took over, so the blockade became necessary and was instituted by Olmert in a reversal of his and Sharon's prior plans to encourage the development of Gaza without an Israeli occupation.
If anything Netanyahu is a response to Hamas rather than the other way around, and even then he's only barely been able to be elected even with Hamas.
Israel largely prevented the commercial exploitation of the Gaza Gas Field in the 2000-2007 period.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
I do find it remarkable that out of all of the measures that Kwartang announced that were later recinded by Hunt, this is one fo the few that he has decided to keep!
Yes.
Anyone would think the government was led by an ex-Goldman Sachs employee with a reputation for slipperiness.
Given that this debate has ruined the enjoyment of PB for more than a fortnight now, was surprised to see it as a thread header.
Getting back to betting, party politics and bantz would be a good move.
Apologies Anabob. I tried to avoid the detail of the curent crisis in the piece as I thought it was worth discussing the nature of terrorism and whow we define it in a wider context. Sadly it is a fact of life today anmd has an oimpact on every aspect of our lives, not just on Israel and the Palestinians.
No need to apologise to me a) I don't set the agenda and b) your posts have been a voice of balance and reason amid various horror shows from other PBers
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
more likely to lead to the end of the 6N
Probably no bad thing. It's a grossly outdated tournament that handpicks its entrants based on nothing much.
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
more likely to lead to the end of the 6N
Probably no bad thing. It's a grossly outdated tournament that handpicks its entrants based on nothing much.
C'mon, thank god we have it now southern hemisphere RU is dead.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
The problem is most of the damage has already been done. The banks readjusted their compensation packages to align with the rules, with the result that, for many of the people I knew as analysts, their base pay went from £100K to £250K-350K. That was great for them because they traded a large part of their compensation from an uncertain and variable amount influenced by political machinations and who liked you (bonuses) to the certainty of a fixed amount (wages). You can't change that back now given it will be in contracts, people will have gotten mortgages etc off the back of their new base salary.
But, to emphasise, the original rule was badly thought out and typical of what happens when lawyers (ahem) and regulators get to design such measures, namely they do not think of the ripple effects from what they recommend.
This is very true and the change here is going to take many years to filter through as investment funds and hedge funds see enough employee churn to go back to lower base salaries coupled with high OTE as it was when I started vs now middling OTE with a high base salary.
Why would you leave a job with a high base salary for a lower base salary with a bonus?
If the lower base came with an unlimited bonus multiplier I know plenty of people who would go for it.
I would expect the restoration of bankers' bonuses to herald a significant uplift in the opinion polls for the Tories, as voters show their immense gratitude to the government for removing the yoke of oppression from beleaguered bankers.
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
While I agree about lack of promotion/relegation in the 6N, its not exactly unique. US sports don't have it either, and tend not to even have a pyramid structure behind the top league either.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
The lawyer for the guy who did debate prep with Chris Christie (pre-vaccine) while knowingly testing positive.
"We have the leading candidate for president of the United States in this courtroom today," Kise says, adding that "I don't think we should really be here today," given the covid exposures. https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1716818184328863893
Still needs the support of Catalan nationalists for a majority and they are demanding pardons for those charged with involvement in the illegal 2017 Catalan independence referendum and UDI declaration as the price of support
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
This is a really useful thread header. I agree with a lot of it, but I think the overall thrust is wrong. Understandably the topic is quite emotionally loaded and the header seems to be coming from a desire to define terrorism based on whether it is justified/unjustified or to put it in simpler terms, right or wrong. To me, this question is an orthogonal one (and a hard one to answer a lot of the time) to a definitional question of what terrorism is. In my view it is important to focus on the word "terror" - terrorism should be seen as a form of psychological warfare, designed to achieve specific political goals through acts of violence. The IRA's goal was to make the British public question the British state's involvement in Ireland. Al Qaeda's goal was to make the West disengage from the Middle East. Hamas's goal is to make the Israeli public question their state's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and to inflame Arab opinion against Israel to keep the issue on the front page and prevent Arab states from concluding peace deals with Israel that don't address the Palestinians' concerns. Terrorism tends to be carried out by non state actors because it is a form of asymmetrical warfare that tends to be carried out by the weaker partner in the conflict. The stronger partner has other means at their disposal. Israeli attacks on Gaza are therefore not terrorism. Similarly, the bombing of Hamburg or Hiroshima are not terrorism. Whether they are war crimes is a different issue. Whether any of these things are right or wrong is a third question altogether, and one I'm always surprised at how many people feel themselves qualified to answer. In many conflicts it's hard to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. Rather than seeking elusive moral clarity we should focus our efforts on helping both sides to de-escalate and find a lasting peace that removes the underlying causes of the conflict.
While in many conflicts it is surprisingly easy to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. plus in those situations the "source of the conflict" is the fact that the bad guys want conflict. Eg Ukraine was at peace, before Russia invaded. Eg Israel had stopped occupying Gaza and was helping the Palestinians build the Port of Gaza to aid their development before Hamas took over. We can divide some conflicts by saying democratic Ukraine good, authoritarian Russia bad. Similarly democratic Israel good, Islamofascist Hamas bad.
Rather than seeking elusive "de-escalation" in those situations, we should be seeking to aid victory for our allies who are good over those who would do them harm and in victory they can maybe have a lasting peace.
Israel had stopped occupying Gaza, but has been continuing to blockade it. The Netanyahu government has had no interest in Gaza being able to function anything like a normal state, and it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and to build settlements on occupied territory in contravention of international law. Israel continues to discriminate against Arab Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians. And Israeli democracy has been deteriorating under Bibi!
Hamas is, in part, a consequence of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. This is not to condone Hamas's actions, but it is moral naivety not to recognise this context. It is the official policy of the UK government and that of most of our allies that we do not condone Israel's actions in Palestine, that we recognise continued settlement building as being contrary to international law and contrary to hopes for a lasting peace.
Except the facts don't back up that whatsoever. Netanyahu wasn't even in power when Hamas took over Gaza, Ehud Olmert was.
Israel wasn't blockading Gaza prior to the rise of Hamas, quite the opposite. From 2005 to 2007 (when Hamas took over) Israel was not only not blockading Gaza, they were encouraging the development of the Port of Gaza to help Gaza get developed.
Unfortunately then Hamas took over, so the blockade became necessary and was instituted by Olmert in a reversal of his and Sharon's prior plans to encourage the development of Gaza without an Israeli occupation.
If anything Netanyahu is a response to Hamas rather than the other way around, and even then he's only barely been able to be elected even with Hamas.
You appear to have misread what I wrote. I said, "it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO". I didn't say it was Bibi.
You, as usual, completely skip over the continued settlement building in the West Bank.
How far past are you going? Decades before it was known what Hamas was or would become?
Prior to Bibi, Sharon and Olmert were trying to disengage from Gaza and encourage development in Gaza without an Israeli occupation. Prior to that there was a sustained period of trying to work with the PLO and Arafat, until Arafat rejected peace.
Israel like almost all democratic nations wants peace and has voted for peaceful regimes time and again, they've agreed peace with Egypt and other former enemies. If only there was a Palestinian leadership that was equal to them. Its not Israel keeping Palestinians down, its Hamas and Palestinian leadership over decades.
As for continued settlement building, I've addressed it repeatedly. Its not ideal, but considering that the Palestinians have rejected the proposed borders and the Camp David process says that final borders are up for "negotiations", Israel is entirely in its rights to respond to suicide bombers etc being sent into its territory to move the border one way by instead using settlements to put pressure on to move it the other way.
Want to stop settlements? Agree a peace treaty with a fixed border, culminate the negotiations.
Incidentally Israel has a history of respecting negotiations once an agreement is made and either dismantling or handing over settlements in response, see what happened in Sinai, Sharm el Sheikh etc.
Ellis pled guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and writing. She was sentenced to five years probation, ordered to pay $5,000 restitution to the Georgia secretary of state, 100 hours of community service, and to write a letter of apology. She also agreed to cooperate with prosecutors testify truthfully against the remaining defendants in the case. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/jenna-ellis-plea-deal-trump-georgia-election-case
This is a uncontestable Brexit dividend, this is what the Red Wall voted for.
The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of City rules, it has been confirmed.
The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.
It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.
The cap will be lifted from 31 October, the Financial Conduct Authority said.
City bosses have long complained about the EU-wide bonus rules which cap bonuses at twice an employee's salary.
They say they lead to higher base pay that pushes up banks' fixed costs.
Those costs cannot be adjusted in line with the firm's financial performance, they add, making the UK less attractive than the US or Asia as a place to do business.
But critics have argued the move benefits wealthy people at a time when many households are struggling with the cost of living.
The problem is most of the damage has already been done. The banks readjusted their compensation packages to align with the rules, with the result that, for many of the people I knew as analysts, their base pay went from £100K to £250K-350K. That was great for them because they traded a large part of their compensation from an uncertain and variable amount influenced by political machinations and who liked you (bonuses) to the certainty of a fixed amount (wages). You can't change that back now given it will be in contracts, people will have gotten mortgages etc off the back of their new base salary.
But, to emphasise, the original rule was badly thought out and typical of what happens when lawyers (ahem) and regulators get to design such measures, namely they do not think of the ripple effects from what they recommend.
This is very true and the change here is going to take many years to filter through as investment funds and hedge funds see enough employee churn to go back to lower base salaries coupled with high OTE as it was when I started vs now middling OTE with a high base salary.
Why would you leave a job with a high base salary for a lower base salary with a bonus?
When your bonus is more than £500k a year, as it was for top investment bankers at HSBC in 2021, if they perform well the end of bonus caps could see that go even higher
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
@Richard_Tyndall Thank you, Richard, for an interesting and unusual article. But I'm a slow thinker, so it will take me some time to formulate a proper comment.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
I'm not sure what your point is. The key word is 'illegal'. And in the article, Reid refers to 'failed asylum seekers', not asylum seekers in general.
I would expect any government to clamp down on illegal migrants. The current bunch are just useless at it, as the massive backlog of claims shows.
For those moaning about British trains I am on a coastal train from Catania on just a one hour journey and it’s already 1 hour 40 minutes in and we’re only halfway there and the train has stopped for no reason AGAIN
It’s a rather nice train tho. And it’s 5 times cheaper than UK trains
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
While I agree about lack of promotion/relegation in the 6N, its not exactly unique. US sports don't have it either, and tend not to even have a pyramid structure behind the top league either.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
I'm not sure what your point is. The key word is 'illegal'. And in the article, Reid refers to 'failed asylum seekers', not asylum seekers in general.
I would expect any government to clamp down on illegal migrants. The current bunch are just useless at it, as the massive backlog of claims shows.
The point is that all of the problems today are actually the problems of the Last Labour Government. Not that there are any problems cos look the Last Labour Government were the same / worse. So vote Conservative or Fuck Off.
@Richard_Tyndall Thank you, Richard, for an interesting and unusual article. But I'm a slow thinker, so it will take me some time to formulate a proper comment.
Thankyou Anne. Lovely to see you. I was mentioning last week that I always enjoyed your daily opening of saying good morning to everyone before jumping into the debates. Glad to see you are okay.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
I'm not sure what your point is. The key word is 'illegal'. And in the article, Reid refers to 'failed asylum seekers', not asylum seekers in general.
I would expect any government to clamp down on illegal migrants. The current bunch are just useless at it, as the massive backlog of claims shows.
The point is that all of the problems today are actually the problems of the Last Labour Government. Not that there are any problems cos look the Last Labour Government were the same / worse. So vote Conservative or Fuck Off.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
I'm not sure what your point is. The key word is 'illegal'. And in the article, Reid refers to 'failed asylum seekers', not asylum seekers in general.
I would expect any government to clamp down on illegal migrants. The current bunch are just useless at it, as the massive backlog of claims shows.
The point is that all of the problems today are actually the problems of the Last Labour Government. Not that there are any problems cos look the Last Labour Government were the same / worse. So vote Conservative or Fuck Off.
No, the point is that the present government is rhetorically no further right than New Labour, and in practice is arguably to the left of them.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
Or he's just clumsily equating the numbers (size of new towns, annual illegal immigration).
He’s also labelling as illegal immigration things that aren’t illegal. We don’t have a number for actual illegal immigration, what with it being illegal and hard to count, but it’s estimated in the hundreds per year IIRC. Not many. Jenrick is talking about people claiming asylum, who are acting legally with respect to their immigration status. They have declared themselves to the immigration authorities. They are being processed (albeit very slowly, but that’s the government’s fault).
For those moaning about British trains I am on a coastal train from Catania on just a one hour journey and it’s already 1 hour 40 minutes in and we’re only halfway there and the train has stopped for no reason AGAIN
It’s a rather nice train tho. And it’s 5 times cheaper than UK trains
I once got the train from Palermo to Catania, across the center of Sicily. It was several hours late.
I read Paul Auster as the scenery changed - very slowly - outside the window.
Still needs the support of Catalan nationalists for a majority and they are demanding pardons for those charged with involvement in the illegal 2017 Catalan independence referendum and UDI declaration as the price of support
Large chunks of lowland Sicily are quite phenomenally ugly. A trashed landscape of exurban post industrial meh-ness interspersed with unpleasantly intense agriculture and grimy autostrade
On the odd chance that some oddball on here is still interested in election results . . .
Argentina General Election - for President (top two qualify for runoff) source Wiki, with 100% reported:
Sergio Massa Union for the Homeland (UP) 9,645,983 36.7% Javier Milei Liberty Advances (LLA) 7,884,336 30.0% Patricia Bullrich Together for Change (JxC) 6,267,152 23.84 Juan Schiaretti We Do for Our Country (HNP) 1,784,315 6.8% Myriam Bregman Workers' Left Front (FIT) 709,932 2.7% Total 26,291,718 100% of valid votes Valid votes 26,291,718 97.0% Invalid votes 254,796 0.9% Blank votes 554,161 2.1% Total votes 27,100,675 100% of total votes Registered voters/turnout 35,410,080 76.5%
NOTE that Trump wanna-be Milei seriously underperformed, leastways based on pre-election polling; on the other hand, Massa of the governing (in a manner of speaking) Peronist party got a bit over 1/3 of valid votes cast which is pretty crummy for functional incumbent.
> Sergio Massa (aka Cristina Kirchner with a pretty face) was strongest in northern Argentina, in particular in provinces of Santiago del Estero, Formosa, Catamarca, Corrientes.
> Javier Milei (Fucker Carlson's favorite) was strongest in western Argentina, especially in provinces of Mendoza and San Luis, also in Santa Fe and Missiones in northeast, and Salta in northwest.
> Patricia Bullich (the best choice IMHO) came in first in just metro Buenos Aires, but she also did well in Buenos Aires province where she was second (I think) behind Milei.
Sadly, the Islas Malvinas were denied opportunity to vote this election, but "residents" of Antártida Argentina cast their votes for Milei; methinks they'd been better advised to cast their spare penguin shit at him!
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
I'm not sure what your point is. The key word is 'illegal'. And in the article, Reid refers to 'failed asylum seekers', not asylum seekers in general.
I would expect any government to clamp down on illegal migrants. The current bunch are just useless at it, as the massive backlog of claims shows.
The point is that all of the problems today are actually the problems of the Last Labour Government. Not that there are any problems cos look the Last Labour Government were the same / worse. So vote Conservative or Fuck Off.
No, the point is that the present government is rhetorically no further right than New Labour, and in practice is arguably to the left of them.
Painfully sad that as you keep saying this with a straight face you appear deluded enough to believe its true.
Just because the Tories are trying to pretend that all migrants are illegal asylum seekers doesn't make it factual...
For those moaning about British trains I am on a coastal train from Catania on just a one hour journey and it’s already 1 hour 40 minutes in and we’re only halfway there and the train has stopped for no reason AGAIN
It’s a rather nice train tho. And it’s 5 times cheaper than UK trains
I once got the train from Palermo to Catania, across the center of Sicily. It was several hours late.
I read Paul Auster as the scenery changed - very slowly - outside the window.
Sicily is not a beautiful island. In general
It has some exquisite towns and cities and amazing coastline - in places - but in general the landscapes aren’t a patch on Sardinia, let alone Corsica
This is a really useful thread header. I agree with a lot of it, but I think the overall thrust is wrong. Understandably the topic is quite emotionally loaded and the header seems to be coming from a desire to define terrorism based on whether it is justified/unjustified or to put it in simpler terms, right or wrong. To me, this question is an orthogonal one (and a hard one to answer a lot of the time) to a definitional question of what terrorism is. In my view it is important to focus on the word "terror" - terrorism should be seen as a form of psychological warfare, designed to achieve specific political goals through acts of violence. The IRA's goal was to make the British public question the British state's involvement in Ireland. Al Qaeda's goal was to make the West disengage from the Middle East. Hamas's goal is to make the Israeli public question their state's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and to inflame Arab opinion against Israel to keep the issue on the front page and prevent Arab states from concluding peace deals with Israel that don't address the Palestinians' concerns. Terrorism tends to be carried out by non state actors because it is a form of asymmetrical warfare that tends to be carried out by the weaker partner in the conflict. The stronger partner has other means at their disposal. Israeli attacks on Gaza are therefore not terrorism. Similarly, the bombing of Hamburg or Hiroshima are not terrorism. Whether they are war crimes is a different issue. Whether any of these things are right or wrong is a third question altogether, and one I'm always surprised at how many people feel themselves qualified to answer. In many conflicts it's hard to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. Rather than seeking elusive moral clarity we should focus our efforts on helping both sides to de-escalate and find a lasting peace that removes the underlying causes of the conflict.
While in many conflicts it is surprisingly easy to divide the two sides into good guys and bad guys. plus in those situations the "source of the conflict" is the fact that the bad guys want conflict. Eg Ukraine was at peace, before Russia invaded. Eg Israel had stopped occupying Gaza and was helping the Palestinians build the Port of Gaza to aid their development before Hamas took over. We can divide some conflicts by saying democratic Ukraine good, authoritarian Russia bad. Similarly democratic Israel good, Islamofascist Hamas bad.
Rather than seeking elusive "de-escalation" in those situations, we should be seeking to aid victory for our allies who are good over those who would do them harm and in victory they can maybe have a lasting peace.
Israel had stopped occupying Gaza, but has been continuing to blockade it. The Netanyahu government has had no interest in Gaza being able to function anything like a normal state, and it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and to build settlements on occupied territory in contravention of international law. Israel continues to discriminate against Arab Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians. And Israeli democracy has been deteriorating under Bibi!
Hamas is, in part, a consequence of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. This is not to condone Hamas's actions, but it is moral naivety not to recognise this context. It is the official policy of the UK government and that of most of our allies that we do not condone Israel's actions in Palestine, that we recognise continued settlement building as being contrary to international law and contrary to hopes for a lasting peace.
Except the facts don't back up that whatsoever. Netanyahu wasn't even in power when Hamas took over Gaza, Ehud Olmert was.
Israel wasn't blockading Gaza prior to the rise of Hamas, quite the opposite. From 2005 to 2007 (when Hamas took over) Israel was not only not blockading Gaza, they were encouraging the development of the Port of Gaza to help Gaza get developed.
Unfortunately then Hamas took over, so the blockade became necessary and was instituted by Olmert in a reversal of his and Sharon's prior plans to encourage the development of Gaza without an Israeli occupation.
If anything Netanyahu is a response to Hamas rather than the other way around, and even then he's only barely been able to be elected even with Hamas.
You appear to have misread what I wrote. I said, "it was past Israeli administrations that supported Hamas to destabilise the PLO". I didn't say it was Bibi.
You, as usual, completely skip over the continued settlement building in the West Bank.
How far past are you going? Decades before it was known what Hamas was or would become?
Prior to Bibi, Sharon and Olmert were trying to disengage from Gaza and encourage development in Gaza without an Israeli occupation. Prior to that there was a sustained period of trying to work with the PLO and Arafat, until Arafat rejected peace.
Israel like almost all democratic nations wants peace and has voted for peaceful regimes time and again, they've agreed peace with Egypt and other former enemies. If only there was a Palestinian leadership that was equal to them. Its not Israel keeping Palestinians down, its Hamas and Palestinian leadership over decades.
As for continued settlement building, I've addressed it repeatedly. Its not ideal, but considering that the Palestinians have rejected the proposed borders and the Camp David process says that final borders are up for "negotiations", Israel is entirely in its rights to respond to suicide bombers etc being sent into its territory to move the border one way by instead using settlements to put pressure on to move it the other way.
Want to stop settlements? Agree a peace treaty with a fixed border, culminate the negotiations.
Incidentally Israel has a history of respecting negotiations once an agreement is made and either dismantling or handing over settlements in response, see what happened in Sinai, Sharm el Sheikh etc.
Israel has been in military occupation of the West Bank since 1967. Yes, it is Israel keeping Palestinians down.
When you say Israel is entirely in its rights to move the border one way or the other, could you lay out which rights those are? Are these rights written down somewhere? That’s not what international law says. We don’t say Russia is within their rights to move the border one way or the other. We didn’t say Iraq was. Settlements on occupied territory are illegal under international law. That is what the UN says. That is what the US says. That is what the UK says.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
I'm not sure what your point is. The key word is 'illegal'. And in the article, Reid refers to 'failed asylum seekers', not asylum seekers in general.
I would expect any government to clamp down on illegal migrants. The current bunch are just useless at it, as the massive backlog of claims shows.
The point is that all of the problems today are actually the problems of the Last Labour Government. Not that there are any problems cos look the Last Labour Government were the same / worse. So vote Conservative or Fuck Off.
No, the point is that the present government is rhetorically no further right than New Labour, and in practice is arguably to the left of them.
Painfully sad that as you keep saying this with a straight face you appear deluded enough to believe its true.
Just because the Tories are trying to pretend that all migrants are illegal asylum seekers doesn't make it factual...
Immigration under this Tory government has been the highest in history and they talk about illegal immigration as a rhetorical distraction. It's a myth that they are 'far right'.
Robert Jenrick on Labour immigration policy: “The new towns he [Keir Starmer] announced at the Labour party conference will be filled with illegal migrants."
We're fairly openly in the arena of far right rhetoric here.
It'll be interesting to see if this was a gaffe or the first salvo of a planned strategy.
Interviewer: So, Sir Keir. Can you categorically state that no illegal immigrants will be housed in one of your new 'New Towns'?
Sir Keir: Um, I can't categorically state that.
Interviewer: So these new towns are for illegal immigrants then?
Sir Keir: They're not specifically for illegal immigrants...
Could get messy.
After finally extracting himself from that there's little relief for the Labour leader as the penetrating and thoughtful interviewer moves onto the next question ... what is a woman?
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
While I agree about lack of promotion/relegation in the 6N, its not exactly unique. US sports don't have it either, and tend not to even have a pyramid structure behind the top league either.
On the odd chance that some oddball on here is still interested in election results . . .
Argentina General Election - for President (top two qualify for runoff) source Wiki, with 100% reported:
Sergio Massa Union for the Homeland (UP) 9,645,983 36.7% Javier Milei Liberty Advances (LLA) 7,884,336 30.0% Patricia Bullrich Together for Change (JxC) 6,267,152 23.84 Juan Schiaretti We Do for Our Country (HNP) 1,784,315 6.8% Myriam Bregman Workers' Left Front (FIT) 709,932 2.7% Total 26,291,718 100% of valid votes Valid votes 26,291,718 97.0% Invalid votes 254,796 0.9% Blank votes 554,161 2.1% Total votes 27,100,675 100% of total votes Registered voters/turnout 35,410,080 76.5%
NOTE that Trump wanna-be Milei seriously underperformed, leastways based on pre-election polling; on the other hand, Massa of the governing (in a manner of speaking) Peronist party got a bit over 1/3 of valid votes cast which is pretty crummy for functional incumbent.
> Sergio Massa (aka Cristina Kirchner with a pretty face) was strongest in northern Argentina, in particular in provinces of Santiago del Estero, Formosa, Catamarca, Corrientes.
> Javier Milei (Fucker Carlson's favorite) was strongest in western Argentina, especially in provinces of Mendoza and San Luis, also in Santa Fe and Missiones in northeast, and Salta in northwest.
> Patricia Bullich (the best choice IMHO) came in first in just metro Buenos Aires, but she also did well in Buenos Aires province where she was second (I think) behind Milei.
Sadly, the Islas Malvinas were denied opportunity to vote this election, but "residents" of Antártida Argentina cast their votes for Milei; methinks they'd been better advised to cast their spare penguin shit at him!
Interesting, thanks! If Bullrich endorses Milei (I've seen it suggested that this may happen) then Milei may still get there.
Comments
Forsa
CDU/CSU 31%
AfD 21%
SPD 14%
Green 14%
FDP 5%
Left 4%
FW 3%
Others 8%
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
33% supporting the 3-party governing coalition compared to 52% at the previous election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67206691
Hopefully we lead to the end of the 6N closed shop, which is an embarrassment to the entire concept of sport. Either arrange promotion/relegation to the European Championship or get rid.
Starmer's housing plan is for 300k new homes a year. That's homes for... a bit less than a million people, doing a Fermi estimate?
We don't have, and aren't going to have, a million illegal migrants a year.
Naughty, innumerable, dog-whistling Jenrick.
Jenrick is a small-minded fool playing to an audience of parochial bigots. Happily the polls show that not only is the audience shrinking but soon Jenrick and many of his colleagues will be gone.
Anyone would think the government was led by an ex-Goldman Sachs employee with a reputation for slipperiness.
Good job we’ve got Sunak instead.
Does he contain multitudes ?
One of my cocktail party answers to, “So what do you do?” is, “Clients pay a lot of money to ignore what I tell them.”
Interviewer: So, Sir Keir. Can you categorically state that no illegal immigrants will be housed in one of your new 'New Towns'?
Sir Keir: Um, I can't categorically state that.
Interviewer: So these new towns are for illegal immigrants then?
Sir Keir: They're not specifically for illegal immigrants...
Could get messy.
Jenna ELLIS is taking a guily plea in Georgia for a count of "aiding and abetting false statements/writings."
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1716808449747464406
(I paraphrase.)
I’m innocent. Why would I be ashamed of that?
https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/status/1699882976060854444
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spains-socialists-hard-left-sumar-strike-government-coalition-deal-2023-10-24/
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1716817540696113470
Trump entered the courtroom and walked slowly toward the defense table, flanked by his attorneys Chris Kise and Alina Habba.
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1716816224787853629
"We have the leading candidate for president of the United States in this courtroom today," Kise says, adding that "I don't think we should really be here today," given the covid exposures.
https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1716818184328863893
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spains-socialists-roll-dice-catalan-amnesty-bid-power-2023-09-29/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6424377.stm
A clampdown has been launched targeting "foreigners [who] come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits", home secretary John Reid has said.
The plan is to stop illegal immigrants getting housing, healthcare or work.
He said the UK was now "throwing out" record numbers of asylum seekers and he hoped to make life "constrained and uncomfortable" for illegal immigrants.
Prior to Bibi, Sharon and Olmert were trying to disengage from Gaza and encourage development in Gaza without an Israeli occupation. Prior to that there was a sustained period of trying to work with the PLO and Arafat, until Arafat rejected peace.
Israel like almost all democratic nations wants peace and has voted for peaceful regimes time and again, they've agreed peace with Egypt and other former enemies. If only there was a Palestinian leadership that was equal to them. Its not Israel keeping Palestinians down, its Hamas and Palestinian leadership over decades.
As for continued settlement building, I've addressed it repeatedly. Its not ideal, but considering that the Palestinians have rejected the proposed borders and the Camp David process says that final borders are up for "negotiations", Israel is entirely in its rights to respond to suicide bombers etc being sent into its territory to move the border one way by instead using settlements to put pressure on to move it the other way.
Want to stop settlements? Agree a peace treaty with a fixed border, culminate the negotiations.
Incidentally Israel has a history of respecting negotiations once an agreement is made and either dismantling or handing over settlements in response, see what happened in Sinai, Sharm el Sheikh etc.
Another of Trump's Lawyers has taken a plea deal.
This one is Jenna Ellis.
Ellis pled guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and writing. She was sentenced to five years probation, ordered to pay $5,000 restitution to the Georgia secretary of state, 100 hours of community service, and to write a letter of apology. She also agreed to cooperate with prosecutors testify truthfully against the remaining defendants in the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/jenna-ellis-plea-deal-trump-georgia-election-case
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10645745/Bankers-bonuses-drive-UK-pay-growth-Payouts-expected-soar.html
Treat a shit-stirring question with the contempt it deserves.
I would expect any government to clamp down on illegal migrants. The current bunch are just useless at it, as the massive backlog of claims shows.
It’s a rather nice train tho. And it’s 5 times cheaper than UK trains
INDEPENDENTS: Biden Job Approval
CNN
Approve 30%
Disapprove 70%
Fox News
Approve 23%
Disapprove 77%
NPR/Marist
Approve 32%
Disapprove 62%
Quinnipiac
Approve 31%
Disapprove 60%
CBS News
Approve 34%
Disapprove 66%
Suffolk
Approve 31%
Disapprove 66%
AVERAGE: 30/67 (-37)
Small mercies!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/
I read Paul Auster as the scenery changed - very slowly - outside the window.
NEW THREAD
The coast is agreeable
Argentina General Election - for President (top two qualify for runoff)
source Wiki, with 100% reported:
Sergio Massa Union for the Homeland (UP) 9,645,983 36.7%
Javier Milei Liberty Advances (LLA) 7,884,336 30.0%
Patricia Bullrich Together for Change (JxC) 6,267,152 23.84
Juan Schiaretti We Do for Our Country (HNP) 1,784,315 6.8%
Myriam Bregman Workers' Left Front (FIT) 709,932 2.7%
Total 26,291,718 100% of valid votes
Valid votes 26,291,718 97.0%
Invalid votes 254,796 0.9%
Blank votes 554,161 2.1%
Total votes 27,100,675 100% of total votes
Registered voters/turnout 35,410,080 76.5%
NOTE that Trump wanna-be Milei seriously underperformed, leastways based on pre-election polling; on the other hand, Massa of the governing (in a manner of speaking) Peronist party got a bit over 1/3 of valid votes cast which is pretty crummy for functional incumbent.
Perhaps the most interesting results are shown on the maps at this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2023_Argentina_General_Election_map.svg
As you can see for yourselves
> Sergio Massa (aka Cristina Kirchner with a pretty face) was strongest in northern Argentina, in particular in provinces of Santiago del Estero, Formosa, Catamarca, Corrientes.
> Javier Milei (Fucker Carlson's favorite) was strongest in western Argentina, especially in provinces of Mendoza and San Luis, also in Santa Fe and Missiones in northeast, and Salta in northwest.
> Patricia Bullich (the best choice IMHO) came in first in just metro Buenos Aires, but she also did well in Buenos Aires province where she was second (I think) behind Milei.
Sadly, the Islas Malvinas were denied opportunity to vote this election, but "residents" of Antártida Argentina cast their votes for Milei; methinks they'd been better advised to cast their spare penguin shit at him!
Just because the Tories are trying to pretend that all migrants are illegal asylum seekers doesn't make it factual...
It has some exquisite towns and cities and amazing coastline - in places - but in general the landscapes aren’t a patch on Sardinia, let alone Corsica
Corsica is stunning
When you say Israel is entirely in its rights to move the border one way or the other, could you lay out which rights those are? Are these rights written down somewhere? That’s not what international law says. We don’t say Russia is within their rights to move the border one way or the other. We didn’t say Iraq was. Settlements on occupied territory are illegal under international law. That is what the UN says. That is what the US says. That is what the UK says.
https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/argentina/massa-v-milei-what-happens-to-bullrichs-votes-in-the-run-off.phtml