'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
Yes. And they'd probably have enough support to get some of them back into an elected Lords.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
Whipping is good for democracy. How do you know what you’re voting for if there are no political parties? People can come across as all fluffy and then have horrendous views.
But so can Parties. What's the point of Whipping in the Lords? As long as they have the current arrangement WRT revising role and the primacy of the Commons.
A Metropolitan Police officer has sparked fury after telling a Jewish woman that swastikas “need to be taken in context” at a pro-Palestine rally. What other context could there be for a swastika at a pro Hamas march ?
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Worked so well in 1997.
But it was. Under Ken Clark.
And they did. Under Gordon Brown.
If you are going to let the Conservatives off the hook for the state of the economy after COVID and Ukraine (notwithstanding the Trussterf***) surely you need to give Brown a free pass for the Lehmann Bros crash of 2008, and you forget Brown saved the World economy- singlehandedly!
Covid and Ukraine (and the consequent cost of living crisis) were events not of their making but to which the Government had to react.
Brown was warned of the consequences of his action - that then came back to bite him on the arse. If anybody deserves credit for reacting wisely it was probably Darling.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Why would anyone who isn't an hereditary peer or the heir to a peerage vote for the retention of hereditary peerages? Yourself notwithstanding.
I am not convinced this is the golden bullet you are looking for.
Many hereditaries are more committed to their role in the Lords than some of the donor life peers who get a position there.
Defending hereditary peers is also a core Tory principle, popular or not
Maybe if your party's priority was housing, homelessness, improved public services, health, education, business, manufacturing, international trade, genuine economic growth and defence you wouldn't be 15 to 20 points behind in the polls.
Unemployment is lower than inherited from Labour, the economy has been growing etc. However after ten years voters normally vote for change and there is the global cost of living and interest rates problem a Labour government would have to deal with.
None of that however changes the fact defending hereditary peers is a Tory principle as much as increased state intervention in the economy is a Labour principle it largely is down to them to defend
I think you might be onto a winner with your "the economy has been growing etc" line.
Worked so well in 1997.
But it was. Under Ken Clark.
And they did. Under Gordon Brown.
If you are going to let the Conservatives off the hook for the state of the economy after COVID and Ukraine (notwithstanding the Trussterf***) surely you need to give Brown a free pass for the Lehmann Bros crash of 2008, and you forget Brown saved the World economy- singlehandedly!
Covid and Ukraine (and the consequent cost of living crisis) were events not of their making but to which the Government had to react.
Brown was warned of the consequences of his action - that then came back to bite him on the arse. If anybody deserves credit for reacting wisely it was probably Darling.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
Whipping is good for democracy. How do you know what you’re voting for if there are no political parties? People can come across as all fluffy and then have horrendous views.
But so can Parties. What's the point of Whipping in the Lords? As long as they have the current arrangement WRT revising role and the primacy of the Commons.
Parties are more stable and more quickly suffer the consequences of unpopular voting decisions. You’re proposing we vote on people for 15-year terms with little idea of what they stand for.
This is standard cruise line practice. Guests who go ashore on their own trip are told be be back aboard at a set time and the ship will not wait. If you are on an organised excursion the tour company will be in communication with the ship and can ask for a delay if there are issues e.g bus breakdown, traffic jams.
YouTube is full of videos of cruise ships leaving passengers ashore when returning back late.
Ships need to keep to schedule. It is standard practice.
Reason number 4732 for never going on a cruise. As if more were needed. A reminder that Cleethorpes in the rain on a winter day is actually a pretty decent option.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
Lordy, I hate doing this but I think that I am right in saying that Twitter made losses for its first 7 years as they built the business up. It is not surprising at all that DJT is losing money right now and has since its launch. What is rather more important is whether it is ever going to make money and whether there is a clear business plan to do so. That makes the metrics that they are not going to bother measuring somewhat important. Which does, indeed, make the stock a joke. Slightly down again today but nothing like yesterday.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
In general I'm on board with the idea that, "if you've nothing nice to say then don't say anything." There are times when you might think something, but discretion is better for everyone.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
Your middle para - you'd like to see the back of all 'hate speech' laws then?
I'm not a free speech absolutist. Where you can show that speech is inciting violence then I think it is reasonable for the law to intervene. Similarly for speech that amounts to harassment.
In these cases the speech is linked to a harm that is distinct from the speech itself. Clearly there's going to be a big grey zone as to where you draw the line. Some would argue that the Scottish hate speech law only covers speech that would be covered by my two examples of inciting violence and harassment - but I think the difference in degree is sufficient to be a difference in type.
How do you define harassment?
Does it only count if abuse is specifically directed at someone, or does it count if they can read it incidentally?
ie the difference between "@LostPassword is" and "LostPassword is"
It would have to be specifically directed towards them, and involve an element of pursuit. For example, I might have a run-in with someone on pb.com, but I can easily step away from that by not visiting the site for a few days. If that person pursues me to continue the argument on other websites, or by shouting abuse at me outside my home or place of work, then that would be steps that could mark it out as harassment.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The great thing to avoid is an elected second chamber. This will, on Murphy's great principle, give rise to conflicts of elected powers. It's already bad enough with Scotland pretending to be a rival to the UK parliament. Contemplate the USA system, with two elected houses and an elected president, giving three foci of elected power, frequently at war with each other.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The great thing to avoid is an elected second chamber. This will, on Murphy's great principle, give rise to conflicts of elected powers. It's already bad enough with Scotland pretending to be a rival to the UK parliament. Contemplate the USA system, with two elected houses and an elected president, giving three foci of elected power, frequently at war with each other.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
There's no dominant model amongst democracies for second chambers.
Elected (15), indirectly elected (7), appointed (12), and unicameral (48). UK is unique in having "non-geographic area" appointments.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
It raises an interesting question:
Assume somebody is in the habit of spouting prejudice-fuelled shit of the sort that would be better for everyone not said. A new law then comes in which doesn't criminalize the stuff they typically come out with BUT this person has the impression that it might. So they stop saying it.
Good thing? Bad thing? Depends?
This is one of those situations where it is better that someone chooses not to say something then that they feel forced into not saying something. The psychological effect of feeling prevented from having your say is extremely corrosive, and it would raise the risk of such a person deciding they have to act in a more violent way as an alternative.
Social disapproval is a better way to challenge verbal expressions of prejudice than the law, or perceptions of the law.
Social pressure can be powerful and I agree it's the best way (although it's not an either/or with the law). As for feeling free to say whatever you want, that is important (very) but so is the obligation to not say things which are designed to do harm to others for no reason other than prejudice against their identity. The consensus on PB is to rank the first far weightier than the second. I'm not totally signed up to that.
In general I'm on board with the idea that, "if you've nothing nice to say then don't say anything." There are times when you might think something, but discretion is better for everyone.
But this shouldn't be a matter for the law and the Courts to interfere with.
There seems to be a frame of mind which says that everything someone (obvs. a someone who is an exemplar of moral virtue and right think) does not like, or disapproves of, should be criminalised. We really shouldn't be using the criminal law for everything, just as we shouldn't seek to use only the state as a way to organise everything.
Your middle para - you'd like to see the back of all 'hate speech' laws then?
I'm not a free speech absolutist. Where you can show that speech is inciting violence then I think it is reasonable for the law to intervene. Similarly for speech that amounts to harassment.
In these cases the speech is linked to a harm that is distinct from the speech itself. Clearly there's going to be a big grey zone as to where you draw the line. Some would argue that the Scottish hate speech law only covers speech that would be covered by my two examples of inciting violence and harassment - but I think the difference in degree is sufficient to be a difference in type.
How do you define harassment?
Does it only count if abuse is specifically directed at someone, or does it count if they can read it incidentally?
ie the difference between "@LostPassword is" and "LostPassword is"
It would have to be specifically directed towards them, and involve an element of pursuit. For example, I might have a run-in with someone on pb.com, but I can easily step away from that by not visiting the site for a few days. If that person pursues me to continue the argument on other websites, or by shouting abuse at me outside my home or place of work, then that would be steps that could mark it out as harassment.
So JK Rowling should, at least in theory, be able say what she likes about India Willoughby - as long as it isn't specifically directed or libellous and doesn't suggest anyone should actually do anything.
And she shouldn't have any less freedom to do this just because she's a celeb.
That would be OK if that's actually what happens...
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
Lordy, I hate doing this but I think that I am right in saying that Twitter made losses for its first 7 years as they built the business up. It is not surprising at all that DJT is losing money right now and has since its launch. What is rather more important is whether it is ever going to make money and whether there is a clear business plan to do so. That makes the metrics that they are not going to bother measuring somewhat important. Which does, indeed, make the stock a joke. Slightly down again today but nothing like yesterday.
The traffic collapse approaching election year is a bit of a tell-tale there imo.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
Lordy, I hate doing this but I think that I am right in saying that Twitter made losses for its first 7 years as they built the business up. It is not surprising at all that DJT is losing money right now and has since its launch. What is rather more important is whether it is ever going to make money and whether there is a clear business plan to do so. That makes the metrics that they are not going to bother measuring somewhat important. Which does, indeed, make the stock a joke. Slightly down again today but nothing like yesterday.
The traffic collapse approaching election year is a bit of a tell-tale there imo.
TBF the evidence of a pregnancy is rather different from having the bravery to accuse someone of rape, then get the police to take it seriously, then get an actual conviction ...
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The great thing to avoid is an elected second chamber. This will, on Murphy's great principle, give rise to conflicts of elected powers. It's already bad enough with Scotland pretending to be a rival to the UK parliament. Contemplate the USA system, with two elected houses and an elected president, giving three foci of elected power, frequently at war with each other.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
There's no dominant model amongst democracies for second chambers.
Elected (15), indirectly elected (7), appointed (12), and unicameral (48). UK is unique in having "non-geographic area" appointments.
I tend towards supporting an elected chamber, members being regionally elected and with long terms of office, but being limited as to the number of terms they can serve. Two ten year terms as a maximum. Plus, perhaps, a couple of archbishops and the heads of other significant religious denominations, and the heads of significant professional organisations.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
Lordy, I hate doing this but I think that I am right in saying that Twitter made losses for its first 7 years as they built the business up. It is not surprising at all that DJT is losing money right now and has since its launch. What is rather more important is whether it is ever going to make money and whether there is a clear business plan to do so. That makes the metrics that they are not going to bother measuring somewhat important. Which does, indeed, make the stock a joke. Slightly down again today but nothing like yesterday.
The traffic collapse approaching election year is a bit of a tell-tale there imo.
The only way I see this company ever making a profit would be if Trump wins the election and then uses it as his means of direct access to the American people bypassing the media in the same way as he did with Twitter last time. And even then, it is by no means assured.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
A portion of the Lords is already elected. Let's not quibble over the exclusivity of the electorate (2-3 in some cases!)
If Starmer removes the hereditaries who still serve in the upper house, who are elected by their peers, then yes ironically none of the Lords will be elected again. Unless and until Labour move in favour of an elected upper house, in full or in part
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The great thing to avoid is an elected second chamber. This will, on Murphy's great principle, give rise to conflicts of elected powers. It's already bad enough with Scotland pretending to be a rival to the UK parliament. Contemplate the USA system, with two elected houses and an elected president, giving three foci of elected power, frequently at war with each other.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
There's no dominant model amongst democracies for second chambers.
Elected (15), indirectly elected (7), appointed (12), and unicameral (48). UK is unique in having "non-geographic area" appointments.
I tend towards supporting an elected chamber, members being regionally elected and with long terms of office, but being limited as to the number of terms they can serve. Two ten year terms as a maximum. Plus, perhaps, a couple of archbishops and the heads of other significant religious denominations, and the heads of significant professional organisations.
Ten years is too long.
Why not introduce an element of randomness, so upper chamber members never know exactly when they'll face the electorate again?
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The great thing to avoid is an elected second chamber. This will, on Murphy's great principle, give rise to conflicts of elected powers. It's already bad enough with Scotland pretending to be a rival to the UK parliament. Contemplate the USA system, with two elected houses and an elected president, giving three foci of elected power, frequently at war with each other.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
There's no dominant model amongst democracies for second chambers.
Elected (15), indirectly elected (7), appointed (12), and unicameral (48). UK is unique in having "non-geographic area" appointments.
I tend towards supporting an elected chamber, members being regionally elected and with long terms of office, but being limited as to the number of terms they can serve. Two ten year terms as a maximum. Plus, perhaps, a couple of archbishops and the heads of other significant religious denominations, and the heads of significant professional organisations.
Ten years is too long.
Why not introduce an element of randomness, so upper chamber members never know exactly when they'll face the electorate again?
Or perhaps pits filled with spikes scattered around the building? That would be truly random.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
So if a law were passed declaring it a hate crime to mock the wearing of kilts and JK Rowling said, "Well I still think kilts make people look ridiculous and you can arrest me if you want," you think this would be tantamount to an admission of stirring up hate?
I can't begin even to count the ways in which that statement makes no sense at all.
Please do a Google search for something like "How to Think".
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
Why on earth Bishops along with many others are in the HOL
Abolish the lot and have a small elected chamber with revising powers
And it seems that are now to allow the Rwanda bill to pass
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
Someone bothered to read the 8-K SEC filing for DJT.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1774826715631563171 ..even though Truth Social losing a ton of money and only having very meager revenue makes it seem like a joke, it doesn't prove it's a joke. For the proof you need to skip down to the 4th paragraph under Overview. And then you also look at the section titled Key Operating Metrics, which you can see here...
They are not going to adhere "to traditional key performance indicators (which) could potentially divert its focus from strategic evaluation with respect to the progress and growth of its business."
Which means that the loss making business with next to no income isn't going to say how many users it has, how quickly that number is growing, or what their user characteristics are. And probably never will.
They might just as well have printed "we are a scam" and left it at that.
IIRC the numbers yesterday were Trump Media website traffic down half since last year, costs of ~$60m per annum, the main Exec paid $750k and revenue of under $5m.
But MAGAs are seem to be specialists in stupid.
Lordy, I hate doing this but I think that I am right in saying that Twitter made losses for its first 7 years as they built the business up. It is not surprising at all that DJT is losing money right now and has since its launch. What is rather more important is whether it is ever going to make money and whether there is a clear business plan to do so. That makes the metrics that they are not going to bother measuring somewhat important. Which does, indeed, make the stock a joke. Slightly down again today but nothing like yesterday.
The traffic collapse approaching election year is a bit of a tell-tale there imo.
The only way I see this company ever making a profit would be if Trump wins the election and then uses it as his means of direct access to the American people bypassing the media in the same way as he did with Twitter last time. And even then, it is by no means assured.
Yes, it's essentially a call option on a massive increase in corruption in government after November.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The great thing to avoid is an elected second chamber. This will, on Murphy's great principle, give rise to conflicts of elected powers. It's already bad enough with Scotland pretending to be a rival to the UK parliament. Contemplate the USA system, with two elected houses and an elected president, giving three foci of elected power, frequently at war with each other.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
There's no dominant model amongst democracies for second chambers.
Elected (15), indirectly elected (7), appointed (12), and unicameral (48). UK is unique in having "non-geographic area" appointments.
I tend towards supporting an elected chamber, members being regionally elected and with long terms of office, but being limited as to the number of terms they can serve. Two ten year terms as a maximum. Plus, perhaps, a couple of archbishops and the heads of other significant religious denominations, and the heads of significant professional organisations.
Ten years is too long.
Why not introduce an element of randomness, so upper chamber members never know exactly when they'll face the electorate again?
I’ve seen one fifteen year term suggested. Certainly appointing 30 year olds for life seems insane. Or allowing people of the same age as hereditary members.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
Why on earth Bishops along with many others are in the HOL
Abolish the lot and have a small elected chamber with revising powers
And it seems that are now to allow the Rwanda bill to pass
A fully elected second chamber would of course use its mandate to block, not merely just revise legislation, US style
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
None of which really has any bearing on what I wrote.
My point is that Rowling - as quoted by the BBC - claims that "the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal".
But the law makes it a necessary condition that there is an intention to incite hatred. Obviously that is not implied in itself by any statement at all about the meaning of sex, gender, or anything else.
Rowling knows full well that the law isn't doing what she claims.
In case people have difficulty understanding. I don't actually believe that the law should prohibit incitement of hatred, because a lot of what people do from day to day amounts to inciting hatred, or at least dislike. But Rowling shouldn't claim things - for rhetorical purposes - that she knows full well are not true. Otherwise people will tend not to take seriously anything she says.
After repeatedly denying that the fall in small boat crossings last year had anything to do with the weather, Rishi Sunak's spokesperson now blames rising small boat crossing numbers on... the weather. https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1775119772365045955
It's all very convivial on here today. What has changed in the last few days?
I got a new motorbike so I haven't had much time. Also the permanently semi-pisssed bore has stealth flounced. Enjoy it while it lasts.
AI'll be back.
I feel his last battering of any interest out of the subject of AI was cruelly cut short by the PB Hate Being Bored Shitless Act. Just to reassure him if he’s lurking, I still think AI art is shit and at best resembles bad album covers.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
Why on earth Bishops along with many others are in the HOL
Abolish the lot and have a small elected chamber with revising powers
And it seems that are now to allow the Rwanda bill to pass
A fully elected second chamber would of course use its mandate to block, not merely just revise legislation, US style
Good! A fully elected chamber would have its own democratic mandate within the constitutional framework it exists in.
Where is the democratic mandate for the House of Lords? I have some sympathy for elder statespeople and experts who take Ermine. But people there for being a Bishop? Donating money to the Tory Party? No - we need rid.
I remain entertained by Teesside Mayor Ben Houchen who tried to claim he was an independent candidate next month, was entirely disconnected from "that nonsense in Westminster" and that he was in no way whipped or instructed by any party.
And yet the Lord Houchen of Teesport went to do nonsense in Westminster 3 times in March, voting with the Tory whip against Rwanda bill amendments.
Houchen has no mandate to do that. Zero. Especially when the lying bastard then tries to claim he isn't part of the Westminster nonsense or taking the Tory whip.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
I think that they have clearly been hit harder than anyone else by the cutting off of cheap Russian gas. Also the marked slow down in China has hit their capital exports hard. But there does seem to be an underlying malaise that we haven't seen in Germany for a long time.
Its nothing to be smug about, of course. If better capital investment, better training and higher productivity are not the answer to our problems I am really at a loss as to what is. Most of our ambitions over the last 50 years or so have been to make us more like the Germans. If that model starts to fail where do we go?
Surely to prove Brexit is the promised land you once told us it wasn't we need more evidence than March's figure. PMI isn't really the best metric either.
Perhaps actual growth since 2019 comparisons would be a more salient measurement of the genius of Brexit.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
Maybe the Bishops oppose the Rwanda bill because they've read Matthew 25:35-40?
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The great thing to avoid is an elected second chamber. This will, on Murphy's great principle, give rise to conflicts of elected powers. It's already bad enough with Scotland pretending to be a rival to the UK parliament. Contemplate the USA system, with two elected houses and an elected president, giving three foci of elected power, frequently at war with each other.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
There's no dominant model amongst democracies for second chambers.
Elected (15), indirectly elected (7), appointed (12), and unicameral (48). UK is unique in having "non-geographic area" appointments.
I tend towards supporting an elected chamber, members being regionally elected and with long terms of office, but being limited as to the number of terms they can serve. Two ten year terms as a maximum. Plus, perhaps, a couple of archbishops and the heads of other significant religious denominations, and the heads of significant professional organisations.
Ten years is too long.
Why not introduce an element of randomness, so upper chamber members never know exactly when they'll face the electorate again?
Or perhaps pits filled with spikes scattered around the building? That would be truly random.
Given the parlous state of the Palace of Westminster, it's pretty close to that already.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
I think that they have clearly been hit harder than anyone else by the cutting off of cheap Russian gas. Also the marked slow down in China has hit their capital exports hard. But there does seem to be an underlying malaise that we haven't seen in Germany for a long time.
Its nothing to be smug about, of course. If better capital investment, better training and higher productivity are not the answer to our problems I am really at a loss as to what is. Most of our ambitions over the last 50 years or so have been to make us more like the Germans. If that model starts to fail where do we go?
Another tell was the way that the war in Ukraine disrupted German industry - it revealed the extent to which keeping costs down had entailed outsourcing more and more manufacturing East.
Whole ranges of “German” products are now made in Eastern Europe.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
Why on earth Bishops along with many others are in the HOL
Abolish the lot and have a small elected chamber with revising powers
And it seems that are now to allow the Rwanda bill to pass
A fully elected second chamber would of course use its mandate to block, not merely just revise legislation, US style
That would depend on what powers the chamber was given. It's within our choice how much power it should have.
But following on from Merkel is a tougher act than following Cameron/May/Johnson/Truss/Sunak.
And Scholz has two coalition partners to worry about, Starmer will have a single party majority, probably a large one.
The way things are going Starmer might actually have almost no opposition at all in the HoC. Anything like level in votes for the Tories and Reform would create a daft result. Historically one would expect the LDs to reap such rewards, but it's hard to see that.
So, SKS, with a majority of 500! Almost his worst fears I imagine!
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Well he has a golden opportunity to give his defence industry some sizeable contracts, but he seems somewhat disinterested in that opportunity. The electorate can have their say in due course.
Meanwhile, there’s a war going on in Europe, with the British and French stepping up as usual.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
I think that they have clearly been hit harder than anyone else by the cutting off of cheap Russian gas. Also the marked slow down in China has hit their capital exports hard. But there does seem to be an underlying malaise that we haven't seen in Germany for a long time.
Its nothing to be smug about, of course. If better capital investment, better training and higher productivity are not the answer to our problems I am really at a loss as to what is. Most of our ambitions over the last 50 years or so have been to make us more like the Germans. If that model starts to fail where do we go?
Another tell was the way that the war in Ukraine disrupted German industry - it revealed the extent to which keeping costs down had entailed outsourcing more and more manufacturing East.
Whole ranges of “German” products are now made in Eastern Europe.
Last Bosch power tool I bought was Made In China. Last in both senses of the word.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
Why on earth Bishops along with many others are in the HOL
Abolish the lot and have a small elected chamber with revising powers
And it seems that are now to allow the Rwanda bill to pass
A fully elected second chamber would of course use its mandate to block, not merely just revise legislation, US style
Good! A fully elected chamber would have its own democratic mandate within the constitutional framework it exists in.
Where is the democratic mandate for the House of Lords? I have some sympathy for elder statespeople and experts who take Ermine. But people there for being a Bishop? Donating money to the Tory Party? No - we need rid.
I remain entertained by Teesside Mayor Ben Houchen who tried to claim he was an independent candidate next month, was entirely disconnected from "that nonsense in Westminster" and that he was in no way whipped or instructed by any party.
And yet the Lord Houchen of Teesport went to do nonsense in Westminster 3 times in March, voting with the Tory whip against Rwanda bill amendments.
Houchen has no mandate to do that. Zero. Especially when the lying bastard then tries to claim he isn't part of the Westminster nonsense or taking the Tory whip.
An elected upper house would change the entire nature of power in parliament, a fully elected Senate would almost certainly try and use its new mandate to vote down legislation from the Commons, not merely revise it
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
I think that they have clearly been hit harder than anyone else by the cutting off of cheap Russian gas. Also the marked slow down in China has hit their capital exports hard. But there does seem to be an underlying malaise that we haven't seen in Germany for a long time.
Its nothing to be smug about, of course. If better capital investment, better training and higher productivity are not the answer to our problems I am really at a loss as to what is. Most of our ambitions over the last 50 years or so have been to make us more like the Germans. If that model starts to fail where do we go?
Another tell was the way that the war in Ukraine disrupted German industry - it revealed the extent to which keeping costs down had entailed outsourcing more and more manufacturing East.
Whole ranges of “German” products are now made in Eastern Europe.
Last Bosch power tool I bought was Made In China. Last in both senses of the word.
I just bought a Makita drill, and did my research beforehand as to which are the Japanese-made ones and which the Chinese-made ones. There’s more of a difference in quality, than there is a difference in price between the two.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
The whole car industry is having its arse handed to it by high interest rates and cheap Chinese competition - with Tesla no exception to the rule.
SAIC/MG are giving it what for but has anyone seen a BYD or a Funky Cat on the road, oh and Polestar are in trouble.
Loads of BYDs out where I live, but can’t say I’ve seen any Funky Cats. The BYD is as close to a Kia in terms of quality, as the Kia is to a Toyota - which is now blooming close, and really not worth the price difference.
The electric ones especially so far undercut the competition on price, that there really is no competition. There’s a BYD saloon competitor to the Tesla Model S and Mercedes EQS, that’s $60k. The Model Y competitor is $35k, 25% cheaper than the Tesla for the same range. They’re way better built than the Teslas as well, although not close to the Mercedes or VAG premium products.
Looks like the Israeli's knew who they were bombing but were willing to kill them to get at a supposed militant. The militant was not in the convoy the IDF bombed three times.
'Labour plans to axe hereditary peers in UK House of Lords Main opposition party seeks to end ‘anachronistic system’ but would allow those ousted to retain access to parliament'
Looks like Starmer will go beyond even Blair's removal of most hereditaries and scrap them from the Lords completely. So vote Tory to keep our remaining hereditary peers in the Lords and the experience they bring of being rooted in the land! https://www.ft.com/content/d7f3be9d-5f15-46b5-970a-9f42011dc1d8
Enough to make me vote Labour.
That's very good politics and a no-brainer. Smash the unacceptable end of the Tories, plus reduce and balance up the HoL at the same time. I don't think even the current generation of Conservatives could oppose without relying on desperate whataboutery.
Wrt my comments earlier on Nick Palmer's Labour List piece, it's a step away from "Tories are the natural party of Government".
The other one they need to address is criminals and crooks who are in the HoL.
I have a part-written potential header on potential Lib-Lab cooperation, and that is on my list of "things Labour may do short of full PR".
Other item are roll-back the gerrymander to restore PR for Regional Mayors, and expand said Mayors everywhere as a LG Reform which does not require everything to be thrown in the air, but gives more emphasis to the longer term / freedom from central govt string-pulling every fortnight.
I could potentially see some reforms to Life Peers towards election, but that is a bit of a bombshell and it might be better to file hereditary peers in a museum first. One important thing for Lords Elections imo is that it swings differently from, and is a check on, the Commons, so we have some insulation from getting 2 sets of similar partisans at once.
I agree that the remaining heridiraries should go first before we move to further reform.
If we are to have Lords elections, they should be in phases (only a proportion of the house at each election) and for a long period - say 15 years - so you get three tranches elected, usually in the middle of each parliament. Phase it in that way too. The first third replace the third of peers with the lowest attendance record and so on (there being nothing stopping them standing of course, bar nomination).
Oh, and candidates should have endorsements from MPs or officers of at least two political parties, or be a registered independent (Most senior political figures and experts should be able to achieve the former, anyway.) And there should be no whipping.
And the bishops. They're equivalent to hereditaries in the sense of permanent positions, never mind who the current owner is, or rather the rather small pool of current holders.
The Bishops, seeing a Labour government on the horizon, have rather cleverly aligned themselves with Starmer in opposing the Rwanda bill of the government. So Starmer has rather less interest in removing them it seems than the largely Tory still remaining hereditary peers
Why on earth Bishops along with many others are in the HOL
Abolish the lot and have a small elected chamber with revising powers
And it seems that are now to allow the Rwanda bill to pass
A fully elected second chamber would of course use its mandate to block, not merely just revise legislation, US style
Good! A fully elected chamber would have its own democratic mandate within the constitutional framework it exists in.
Where is the democratic mandate for the House of Lords? I have some sympathy for elder statespeople and experts who take Ermine. But people there for being a Bishop? Donating money to the Tory Party? No - we need rid.
I remain entertained by Teesside Mayor Ben Houchen who tried to claim he was an independent candidate next month, was entirely disconnected from "that nonsense in Westminster" and that he was in no way whipped or instructed by any party.
And yet the Lord Houchen of Teesport went to do nonsense in Westminster 3 times in March, voting with the Tory whip against Rwanda bill amendments.
Houchen has no mandate to do that. Zero. Especially when the lying bastard then tries to claim he isn't part of the Westminster nonsense or taking the Tory whip.
An elected upper house would change the entire nature of power in parliament, a fully elected Senate would almost certainly try and use its new mandate to vote down legislation from the Commons, not merely revise it
But at its creation, we could define exactly what powers it has.
Odd to represent a law about threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred as criminalising people "stating simple facts on biology".
Of course, Oscar Wilde told us "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Perhaps it's comforting that Rishi Sunak can be relied on to be always simple.
It is the mixture of deliberately misunderstanding the law (as Sunak has just done) and dim policemen and a general public who don't trust either the mob or the state - with very good reason - which does the damage with this bad (though less bad than is being described) Scottish act. As so often Cyclefree is correct and balanced in her analysis.
Legally I would feel completely free in Scotland to act normally with regard to Freedom of Speech, ie all opinions are permitted, however robustly expressed, but threats are not. Culturally I would not.
Personally I think the bar should be higher than an intention to stir up hatred - more like incitement to violence. And I think the same standard should be applied to all protected characteristics.
But I think this law is being deliberately misrepresented by its opponents. The implication of J. K. Rowling's challenge to the police to arrest her is that she acknowledges her intention is to stir up hatred against people. Otherwise she would be talking nonsense. If she is trying to stir up hatred she should have the courage to admit it. Or if she just thinks that stirring up hatred should be legal, she should make that clear and drop all the martyrdom nonsense.
Not quite. It is fairly clear, I think, that JKR is testing the boundaries of a law she (rightly) doesn't like. There seem to be people who prefer to think the act stops people expressing opinions in a robust way (they prefer to interpret strong opposition as hatred, except when they are doing the opposition of course) and JKR is showing them up, and at the same time showing ordinary people that they should not fear the mob or the state. I hope she is right and I hope succeeds. Whether I agree with her views is of course irrelevant. I am an old fashioned liberal.
JKR is standing for two groups. The quiet sort who have views and believe in the freedom to hold and express them, and the noisy sort, like JKR herself, who believe that if you dish it out you ought to be able to take it. Good.
None of which really has any bearing on what I wrote.
My point is that Rowling - as quoted by the BBC - claims that "the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal".
But the law makes it a necessary condition that there is an intention to incite hatred. Obviously that is not implied in itself by any statement at all about the meaning of sex, gender, or anything else.
Rowling knows full well that the law isn't doing what she claims.
In case people have difficulty understanding. I don't actually believe that the law should prohibit incitement of hatred, because a lot of what people do from day to day amounts to inciting hatred, or at least dislike. But Rowling shouldn't claim things - for rhetorical purposes - that she knows full well are not true. Otherwise people will tend not to take seriously anything she says.
TBF, her core skill is as a writer of fiction; she's not a lawyer.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
Yep. Same reason all the sports car manufacturers are making bloody SUVs now; they’re ridiculously profitable, especially with platform sharing. But hey, if Macan sales lead to more GT3RSs and 911 Turbo Ses, and even pushing innovation like the Taycan Turbo S did, then few complaints.
In totally unrelated news, my wife has shown interest in a Macan for her next car.
The whole car industry is having its arse handed to it by high interest rates and cheap Chinese competition - with Tesla no exception to the rule.
SAIC/MG are giving it what for but has anyone seen a BYD or a Funky Cat on the road, oh and Polestar are in trouble.
Loads of BYDs out where I live, but can’t say I’ve seen any Funky Cats. The BYD is as close to a Kia in terms of quality, as the Kia is to a Toyota - which is now blooming close, and really not worth the price difference.
The electric ones especially so far undercut the competition on price, that there really is no competition. There’s a BYD saloon competitor to the Tesla Model S and Mercedes EQS, that’s $60k. The Model Y competitor is $35k, 25% cheaper than the Tesla for the same range. They’re way better built than the Teslas as well, although not close to the Mercedes or VAG premium products.
Mercedes are usually well screwed together, although nothing like their glory days of the 80s and 90s, but you can guarantee that they will have some of the cheapest, shittest components known to the automotive industry on them somewhere. I reckon they have brilliant engineers but psychopathic misers in the purchasing dept.
I see 1st gen GTs are getting cheap if you like turbo lag and no rear end grip.
Attention might be on this now because of that but hundreds of aid workers have been killed since last October .
196 as of 20th March, apparently, so now over 200.
Thanks for getting the exact figures . It’s just so sad to see people showing the best of humanity killed .
Very sad indeed. The IDF spokesman who expressed regret also noted that WCK were one of the first on the scene on October 7th helping Israelis after the Hamas attack.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
Yep. Same reason all the sports car manufacturers are making bloody SUVs now; they’re ridiculously profitable, especially with platform sharing. But hey, if Macan sales lead to more GT3RSs and 911 Turbo Ses, and even pushing innovation like the Taycan Turbo S did, then few complaints.
In totally unrelated news, my wife has shown interest in a Macan for her next car.
I've just taken a look and it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would spend such sums on a car.
If anything the local elections will reduce Reform momentum. They are likely to perform poorly in the London Mayor and Assembly elections and won't have enough candidates in the council elections to get anywhere near the Tories. They might do a bit better in the PCC elections but still not enough to win
I don't think most voters will notice. The press the morning after will not have headlines saying "Reform UK perform poorly". They'll all say "Conservative disaster".
RefUK are starting from a low base, so they'll probably make some gains somewhere, which means they'll have something to trumpet. They'll do badly in the London Mayoral election but could pick up an Assembly seat or two.
Given current polls have the Tories on about 20-25%, even if they got the 26% NEV they got in last year's local elections, CCHQ would spin that as 'done better than the polls' and if Reform fail to gain any councils or PCC posts or Assembly seats then their momentum stalls
CCHQ spin isn't even effective on once loyal backbenchers now.
I am a life-long Tory voter from a family of life-long Tory voters. None of us going to be voting for this Blairite shower....
Genuine question - why do you think the current government is Blairite?
There is no attempt to take people out of poverty. No investment in public services, not even by enabling the private sector to take a greater role. No social reform. Poor relations with Europe rather than co-operation. On all these Blair was quite timid and leaning slightly right anyway. The only thing I see in common is a tendency to authoritarian centralising, hardly something that right wing parties rail against in my experience.
I do agree they are a shower.
1) Raising taxes by stealth 2) Increasing the size of the state 3) Westminster centralization 4) Petty law changes that do nothing
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
Yep. Same reason all the sports car manufacturers are making bloody SUVs now; they’re ridiculously profitable, especially with platform sharing. But hey, if Macan sales lead to more GT3RSs and 911 Turbo Ses, and even pushing innovation like the Taycan Turbo S did, then few complaints.
In totally unrelated news, my wife has shown interest in a Macan for her next car.
I've just taken a look and it is beyond my comprehension why anyone would spend such sums on a car.
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
I own a Macan, and I absolutely love it.
You and malc, I believe ?
Another Venn diagram.
FFS. Isn't Malc still driving his Linwood made Hillman Imp?
That Germany number is truly terrible. Olaf Scholz has really not worked. I think he is up again next year. Really not fancying his chances.
Utterly horrendous for Germany. It was even worse last summer.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
Brexit Britain not buying their cars?
A3, Golf and the Ein Series all regularly sell in huge volumes in the UK.
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
I own a Macan, and I absolutely love it.
You and malc, I believe ?
Another Venn diagram.
Who knows. But for 55k I got a car that is fun to drive, practical, reliable, whatever... you get the drift.
I'd like to drive a 1950s sports car, but I'm no engineer. I'd like to have the safety of Volvo armour plating (or whatever it was), but tanks don't appeal. I'd like to have the boot space of a transit van, but I'm no grubby tradesman.
I just want a car that is fun to drive, safe to drive, and vaguely practical.
Comments
Not sure which of the others are as clear cut.
Keep the lords as an unelected advising and revising chamber.
https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/state/2024/01/25/texas-rape-statistics-pregnancies-roe-v-wade-overturned-abortion-ban/72339212007/
Less so with social cohesion and family values mind......
Elected (15), indirectly elected (7), appointed (12), and unicameral (48). UK is unique in having "non-geographic area" appointments.
Good analysis:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-are-the-members-of-upper-houses-chosen-around-the-world/
And she shouldn't have any less freedom to do this just because she's a celeb.
That would be OK if that's actually what happens...
And if he did so would we win?
Why not introduce an element of randomness, so upper chamber members never know exactly when they'll face the electorate again?
Please do a Google search for something like "How to Think".
UK 50.3
France 46.2
Eurozone 46.1
Germany 41.9
Brexit is working.
AI'll be back.
Abolish the lot and have a small elected chamber with revising powers
And it seems that are now to allow the Rwanda bill to pass
Not the most ethical of vehicles.
Certainly appointing 30 year olds for life seems insane. Or allowing people of the same age as hereditary members.
The fact he now trails so badly in the polls to Merz led Union just 3 years into government is not a good omen for Starmer, a similarly dull centre left leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_German_federal_election
Germany to support Ukraine with 180,000 artillery shells via Czech initiative
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-support-ukraine-with-180000-artillery-shells-via-czech-initiative-2024-04-02/
My point is that Rowling - as quoted by the BBC - claims that "the accurate description of biological sex is deemed criminal".
But the law makes it a necessary condition that there is an intention to incite hatred. Obviously that is not implied in itself by any statement at all about the meaning of sex, gender, or anything else.
Rowling knows full well that the law isn't doing what she claims.
In case people have difficulty understanding. I don't actually believe that the law should prohibit incitement of hatred, because a lot of what people do from day to day amounts to inciting hatred, or at least dislike. But Rowling shouldn't claim things - for rhetorical purposes - that she knows full well are not true. Otherwise people will tend not to take seriously anything she says.
Germany was once the vibrant beating heart of European manufacturing. What went wrong. Cannot just be covid.
After repeatedly denying that the fall in small boat crossings last year had anything to do with the weather, Rishi Sunak's spokesperson now blames rising small boat crossing numbers on... the weather.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1775119772365045955
So, if the UK was at 46 and the Eurozone at 50, then Brexit would be failing?
Where is the democratic mandate for the House of Lords? I have some sympathy for elder statespeople and experts who take Ermine. But people there for being a Bishop? Donating money to the Tory Party? No - we need rid.
I remain entertained by Teesside Mayor Ben Houchen who tried to claim he was an independent candidate next month, was entirely disconnected from "that nonsense in Westminster" and that he was in no way whipped or instructed by any party.
And yet the Lord Houchen of Teesport went to do nonsense in Westminster 3 times in March, voting with the Tory whip against Rwanda bill amendments.
Houchen has no mandate to do that. Zero. Especially when the lying bastard then tries to claim he isn't part of the Westminster nonsense or taking the Tory whip.
Its nothing to be smug about, of course. If better capital investment, better training and higher productivity are not the answer to our problems I am really at a loss as to what is. Most of our ambitions over the last 50 years or so have been to make us more like the Germans. If that model starts to fail where do we go?
Perhaps actual growth since 2019 comparisons would be a more salient measurement of the genius of Brexit.
Whole ranges of “German” products are now made in Eastern Europe.
Oops !!
First Y-O-Y delivery decline since COVID 2020.
So, SKS, with a majority of 500! Almost his worst fears I imagine!
Meanwhile, there’s a war going on in Europe, with the British and French stepping up as usual.
In the month we closed the coke ovens in Port Talbot the PB faithful are claiming a new dawn and the collapse of German manufacturing.
At the 2021 election the CDU got their lowest share of the Federal vote ever, just 24%, not far off the current Tory voteshare.
Now they are nearly 10% up on that on average
- Trade: its trade relationship with Russia and China is no longer viable
- Demographics: Germany is among the fastest aging societies in the world
- Energy: Germany depends on a constant supply of cheap energy from the Russians
All those things are going in the wrong directionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmEhTFjQB1g
Porsche had an awesome year in the UK in 2023, mostly off the back of the foul Macan. It's horrible but it prints money and makes the rest of the range possible.
Attention might be on this now because of that but hundreds of aid workers have been killed since last October .
The electric ones especially so far undercut the competition on price, that there really is no competition. There’s a BYD saloon competitor to the Tesla Model S and Mercedes EQS, that’s $60k. The Model Y competitor is $35k, 25% cheaper than the Tesla for the same range. They’re way better built than the Teslas as well, although not close to the Mercedes or VAG premium products.
https://twitter.com/reider/status/1775115906005229807
Looks like the Israeli's knew who they were bombing but were willing to kill them to get at a supposed militant. The militant was not in the convoy the IDF bombed three times.
In totally unrelated news, my wife has shown interest in a Macan for her next car.
(As are several U.S. manufacturers.)
I see 1st gen GTs are getting cheap if you like turbo lag and no rear end grip.
Now apply that to the replacement of internal combustion engines in cars.
Germany will be fine, long term, of course. But the challenges are huge.
Another Venn diagram.
2) Increasing the size of the state
3) Westminster centralization
4) Petty law changes that do nothing
Just had a look at YouTube.
https://youtube.com/shorts/E06Y8nGwbGs?si=Rw8j27yWtdWU7DhO
Interesting idea for fusion space propulsion:
https://www.helicityspace.com/technology
Does away with the need for stable magnetic confinement - but how practical is it ?
Lockheed have given them seed funding.
I'd like to drive a 1950s sports car, but I'm no engineer. I'd like to have the safety of Volvo armour plating (or whatever it was), but tanks don't appeal. I'd like to have the boot space of a transit van, but I'm no grubby tradesman.
I just want a car that is fun to drive, safe to drive, and vaguely practical.