Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible casus belli anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
A verbatim transcript from Trump's latest speech in Michigan. I think it starts with a criticism of Harris, hard to tell, but then?
"She destroyed the city of San Francisco, it’s — and I own a big building there — it’s no — I shouldn’t talk about this but that’s OK I don’t give a damn because this is what I’m doing. I should say it’s the finest city in the world — sell and get the hell out of there, right? But I can’t do that. I don’t care, you know? I lost billions of dollars, billions of dollars. You know, somebody said, ‘What do you think you lost?’ I said, ‘Probably two, three billion. That’s OK, I don’t care.’ They say, ‘You think you’d do it again?’ And that’s the least of it. Nobody. They always say, I don’t know if you know. Lincoln was horribly treated. Uh, Jefferson was pretty horribly. Andrew Jackson they say was the worst of all, that he was treated worse than any other president. I said, ‘Do that study again, because I think there’s nobody close to Trump.’ I even got shot! And who the hell knows where that came from, right?"
What the hell is he talking about?
Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content. The chances are that you would produce something like the following:
"We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously."
To his worshippers Trump is a modern Delphic oracle:
One of the main stories claimed that the Pythia delivered oracles in a frenzied state induced by vapours rising from a chasm in the rock, and that she spoke gibberish which priests interpreted as the enigmatic prophecies and turned them into poetic dactylic hexameters preserved in Greek literature.
The more incoherent gibberish Trump rolls out the more profound he is deemed to be.
There is nothing like a well turned phrase even if meaningless. I was at a party in some sort of a cellar in Chelsea and everyone was passing round joints when someone walked in. Maybe it was the person who owned the house I don't remember.
"What are you doing?" He said.
The place went quiet. "Reclaimed Land. Man". Said A Voice in the smokey cellar. I thought it had a bit of a ring but didn't think too much about it. But somehow it spread and months and even years later I'd occasionally hear someone say it to describe where they were what they were doing or even how they felt. People who couldn't possibly have been at the party.
A bit like how New Yorkers use ' COOL'. A word that means whatever you want
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible causes BellissiMoto, anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Yes, the SU. Although it was run from Moscow.
As for Poland; what could we have done? What would you have done in 1938 or 1939 to prevent the war, or help Poland win when Germany invaded? Logistically defending them militarily was an impossibility. We did pretty much all we could: saying that an invasion of Poland would lead to war; a red line we declared and kept to.
You are siding with the president of Brazil who ordered X to try and close the accounts of his political opponents? Is Musk Derangement Syndrome officially a thing?
Well, yes, Musk is deranged, if that is what you mean?
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible causes BellissiMoto, anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Yes, the SU. Although it was run from Moscow.
As for Poland; what could we have done? What would you have done in 1938 or 1939 to prevent the war, or help Poland win when Germany invaded? Logistically defending them militarily was an impossibility. We did pretty much all we could: saying that an invasion of Poland would lead to war; a red line we declared and kept to.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible causes BellissiMoto, anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Yes, the SU. Although it was run from Moscow.
As for Poland; what could we have done? What would you have done in 1938 or 1939 to prevent the war, or help Poland win when Germany invaded? Logistically defending them militarily was an impossibility. We did pretty much all we could: saying that an invasion of Poland would lead to war; a red line we declared and kept to.
Thank goodness we were able sort it out in 1945.
You would have preferred Operation Unthinkable, which was specifically designed to help Poland?
Are we at or passing peak Elmu? He can intimidate and oppress mortals with his wealth, social media reach and phalanx of clone lab grown lawyers but if he takes on the Republic of Brazil and/or the EU then he's going to come off second best.
He does seem to have abandoned any pretense that buying Twitter was a sound business move and fully embraced it as a personal propaganda machine
His argument now is that $44bn was “not the price of Twitter but the price of free speech”. Its quite a good line
I agree he does say some mad stuff on there. At the same time he also allows some pretty wild abuse of himself - which I find surprising for a guy with a thin skin
In the round I think Free Speech TwiX is a good thing, not least because it has revealed just how biased to the left Twitter was before. I do not expect PB to agree with this
It's not free speech though.
Posts which call Republicans "wingnuts" are deleted for violating the terms of service on abusive speech.
Posts which call for violence against refugees or brown people are just fine and aren't taken down.
It's selective speech. I find it rather telling that you're more comfortable with the current balance of the bias than the previous iteration.
Not really. “The world isn’t obliged to put up with Elon Musk’s far-right free-for-all just because he is rich, but because he has FCC approval to put 50 000 comms satellites in LEO” would state the position more accurately. He pretty much owns the world.
The wild west free marketeers have a slight problem arguing that in a country that dealt with Standard Oil more than a century ago.
But perhaps it satellites weren't in the text of the Constitution (excluding the bits they are ignoring), so regulatory capture is OK .
My point was about the de facto position. Now the satellites are up there watchagonna do about them? Jam? Shoot down? Arrest Musk in his JB villain converted volcano?
In the medium term, as they're in a very low orbit, you don't need to shoot the satellites down; they're coming down by themselves within three to six years. Which is why they constantly need to launch new ones up.
Musk is a big issue; he is more of a threat to world stability than Trump.
Which might be a problem, the satellites coming down that is
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible causes BellissiMoto, anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Yes, the SU. Although it was run from Moscow.
As for Poland; what could we have done? What would you have done in 1938 or 1939 to prevent the war, or help Poland win when Germany invaded? Logistically defending them militarily was an impossibility. We did pretty much all we could: saying that an invasion of Poland would lead to war; a red line we declared and kept to.
Thank goodness we were able sort it out in 1945.
We watched the Russian army stand across the Vistula while Warsaw fought to destruction.
Surely 2.08 Harris can't last with polling like this.
PA tie seems to be the problem.
Harris is at 273 without PA here though.
Still a knife-edge, though with an advantage to Harris.
She needs to be massively ahead to have a chance of winning, I'm afraid. I think Trump remains odds on.
First she needs to win a number of those battleground states. But she also needs to 1. win them clearly enough that they don't give MAGA an excuse to take them up to the supreme court which will overturn the results in his favour, 2. somehow rely on Republican controlled state houses not going along with a Trump attempt to overturn each one on other technicalities, 3. win the popular vote, because otherwise Trump's lot will start an insurgency.
Even if she does that I expect various shenanigans. But if the victory is really clear and unambiguous it makes it harder for Trump to do his thing with widespread support.
Are we at or passing peak Elmu? He can intimidate and oppress mortals with his wealth, social media reach and phalanx of clone lab grown lawyers but if he takes on the Republic of Brazil and/or the EU then he's going to come off second best.
He does seem to have abandoned any pretense that buying Twitter was a sound business move and fully embraced it as a personal propaganda machine
His argument now is that $44bn was “not the price of Twitter but the price of free speech”. Its quite a good line
I agree he does say some mad stuff on there. At the same time he also allows some pretty wild abuse of himself - which I find surprising for a guy with a thin skin
In the round I think Free Speech TwiX is a good thing, not least because it has revealed just how biased to the left Twitter was before. I do not expect PB to agree with this
It's not free speech though.
Posts which call Republicans "wingnuts" are deleted for violating the terms of service on abusive speech.
Posts which call for violence against refugees or brown people are just fine and aren't taken down.
It's selective speech. I find it rather telling that you're more comfortable with the current balance of the bias than the previous iteration.
That's what "free speech" means these days though. The meaning has changed.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible causes BellissiMoto, anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Yes, the SU. Although it was run from Moscow.
As for Poland; what could we have done? What would you have done in 1938 or 1939 to prevent the war, or help Poland win when Germany invaded? Logistically defending them militarily was an impossibility. We did pretty much all we could: saying that an invasion of Poland would lead to war; a red line we declared and kept to.
Thank goodness we were able sort it out in 1945.
IIRC Europe was on the verge of mass starvation in 1945. Deciding to continue the war to push the Soviets out of eastern Europe would surely have guaranteed the deaths of further millions. (That’s if you can manage to motivate your troops to engage in a second war with a new enemy at all - politically difficult at the time I would imagine?)
Sometimes you have to choose the least worst out of a menu of very shitty options.
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
Yes but as we saw with Corbyn we don't know which way the polling error will be. I think the Dems outperformed the polls in the midterms iirc..
So - we know the polls are likely wrong, we don't know which way they'll be wrong. Which means for betting purposes you'll probably have to assume they're correct..
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible causes BellissiMoto, anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Yes, the SU. Although it was run from Moscow.
As for Poland; what could we have done? What would you have done in 1938 or 1939 to prevent the war, or help Poland win when Germany invaded? Logistically defending them militarily was an impossibility. We did pretty much all we could: saying that an invasion of Poland would lead to war; a red line we declared and kept to.
Thank goodness we were able sort it out in 1945.
IIRC Europe was on the verge of mass starvation in 1945. Deciding to continue the war to push the Soviets out of eastern Europe would surely have guaranteed the deaths of further millions. (That’s if you can manage to motivate your troops to engage in a second war with a new enemy at all - politically difficult at the time I would imagine?)
Sometimes you have to choose the least worst out of a menu of very shitty options.
The Soviet Army had been our allies for almost four quite nasty years. We'd lost hundreds of men in convoys round the North Cape taking supplies to them. Its was quite common to see three little flags almost as a badge; ours, the Stars and Stripes and the Red Flag. I don't think you could have got our troops to have fought the Russians.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible casus belli anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Sometimes one has no option but to choose between bad courses of action. This was one such occasion.
That seems to me to be a coherent position. And also one I agree with. Scrapping for all except those on benefits seems to me too extreme. But a proper system of means testing with a reasonable cut off does seem appropriate. It is something I would apply to all benefits including the 'middle class' ones like Child Benefit.
I would scrap Winter Fuel Payment entirely on grounds of efficiency and if necessary adjust Pension Credit, which is the means by which older people with inadequate pensions get topped up. You might decide other poorer people, not just the old, struggle with fuel bills and adjust Universal Credit. This might not save any money compared with the status quo but it has the benefit of being a lot more equitable.
In short Winter Fuel Payment is an indefensible benefit in its previous form and Reeves, Starmer and previously Badenoch were correct in wanting to change it. Perhaps they didn't handle the politics particularly well but they are right on the principle.
,.............
And add, Badenoch is disingenuous in her claims that her means testing is different from Labour's means testing. Of course her attacks on Starmer and Reeves are entirely hypocritical and she's been found out.
There is a certain amount of logic in providing the money as an obvious one off payment at a point where the money could be paid directly to your energy company. By just increasing the rate by £6 a week that benefit would be lost and the money received in the summer lost before expensive fuel bills arrived.
Because old people are too stupid to budget in your view? So they need to be infantilised by the government?
That seems to me to be a coherent position. And also one I agree with. Scrapping for all except those on benefits seems to me too extreme. But a proper system of means testing with a reasonable cut off does seem appropriate. It is something I would apply to all benefits including the 'middle class' ones like Child Benefit.
I would scrap Winter Fuel Payment entirely on grounds of efficiency and if necessary adjust Pension Credit, which is the means by which older people with inadequate pensions get topped up. You might decide other poorer people, not just the old, struggle with fuel bills and adjust Universal Credit. This might not save any money compared with the status quo but it has the benefit of being a lot more equitable.
In short Winter Fuel Payment is an indefensible benefit in its previous form and Reeves, Starmer and previously Badenoch were correct in wanting to change it. Perhaps they didn't handle the politics particularly well but they are right on the principle.
,.............
And add, Badenoch is disingenuous in her claims that her means testing is different from Labour's means testing. Of course her attacks on Starmer and Reeves are entirely hypocritical and she's been found out.
Not at all. She has suggested a proper system of means testing not just defaulting to the current unsuitable benefits threshhold. As I said on the previous page it is a coherent position and attacks like yours seem to be predicated on the simple pont that you don't like Badenoch rather than any proper examination of what she is saying. Your original comment copied from the previous thread is sensible. The random attack on Badenoch you have tacked on here is not.
Isn't the problem then that a separate means test creates another layer of bureaucracy, swallowing up a decent slice of the savings?
I guess the other question is where KB would draw the line. Wherever it goes, some people will be the wrong side of the cutoff.
The easiest fix would be to claw it back by some means or other while paying it to everyone.
But clawing it back via income tax (as is done with universal) would result in both pensioners being taxed so there really is no easy fix here - I think you end up with something like Martin Lewis suggested using council tax bands to pay it (and equally that would require combining 2 data sources to do so)
Set the state pension rate at the rate of the tax-free allowance. Raise them both together. Any additional income is taxed. Problem solved.
Can't work for now, if at all. Fiscal drag is essential for the government to increase the tax take while not raising the headline rates.
Personally I think pensioner (I am one) tax should be on the same basis as earned income tax/NIC, by abolishing employee NIC and setting the same IT rate for all groups.
BTW why should wealthy pensioners get cheap rail and free bus travel.
There are clear social (and ultimately economic) costs to elder isolation. Given the marginal cost of public transport approaches zero this one is sensible (albeit AIUI effectively a hidden subsidy to the public transport network)
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
Yes but as we saw with Corbyn we don't know which way the polling error will be. I think the Dems outperformed the polls in the midterms iirc..
So - we know the polls are likely wrong, we don't know which way they'll be wrong. Which means for betting purposes you'll probably have to assume they're correct..
The polling was spot on, in mid terms. The results just didn't deliver the kind of lead in terms of seats, that you would expect with a Republican lead of 3%, in terms of votes.
The State polling, showing all six on a knife-edge, is consistent with the national polling.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Another way of dating WWs is to see a start to a continuous global conflict of powers at or before 1914, with a process continuing until 6th August 1945 and the post 1945 settlements, military and political, a process which gave us those 1950-2000 years, which were pretty good in many ways, so the 20th C divides neatly into two halves.
And, on this thesis, sometime around 2000 (9/11/2001 possibly) the end of history ended, and global conflict history started again. I don't have really good reasons to think this analysis is entirely wrong but I wish I did.
That’s what used to be called the Long 19th Century (1789-1914)
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Depends whether a war needs to be declared or not for Russia. They invaded Poland on 17th September 1939.
'The second world war started with Barabarossa' is a leftist piece of b/s beloved by Russians and their supporters. As you say, Russia's involvement with the war started in 1939 with their Polish invasion. Something, apparently, Russians don't like to talk about much - as they were working with the fascists they now hate.
Between Sept 1939 and June 1941 the Soviets were not at war, apart from the Winter War with Finland.
(Snip)
That's the sort of bull I'm talking about.
Firstly, why do you not count the Winter War? It's a bit odd saying that Russia was not at war for 21 months, when you discount a very bad war they had for... reasons. It's just another way of excusing Russia for its actions, and to cover-up the evils they did to Poland.
Secondly, Russia's invasion of Poland was very much part of the Second World War, and for the reasons @Malmesbury gave above, a vital part of it. The fact they did nto follow-up (aside from the Winter War...) for a while does not suddenly mean they're not part of the war, even if war is undeclared.
Thirdly, Stalin knew war was coming. Russia was trying to rebuild after the purges and the losses in the Winter War; it is not as though they were building for peace.
Russia joined the Second World War when it invaded Poland, in conjunction with the fascists. I'm always amused when people try to hand-wave away the Russian invasion of Poland, as it just shows them to be subject to Russian propaganda that makes Russia the victim, not the perpetrator.
Soviet Union. Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible casus belli anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
Sometimes one has no option but to choose between bad courses of action. This was one such occasion.
"If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."
Churchill was very clear that he saw it a pact to win the war. The lesser of 2 evils.
He was also prepared to go to war with the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe. Which used to be advanced as a sign of his, Churchill's, evil by the Tankie Left.
Reassuring it's not quite so bad here, or a grim foretaste of the future? France's pensions funding crisis (worth reading the thread, its very interesting):
One of the benefits, alongside the problems, of the UK having moved heavily away from state and into personal pension provision is that we don't have this sort of liability on our public balance sheet. The trouble is everything sort of fits together in different ways as a result. Our pensioners get nowhere near as much from the state as in many European countries, even after the triple lock, but personal pensions don't provide anywhere near that level of income either. Instead, our retired population own vast wealth in the form of housing, most of which is owned outright with no mortgage. Housing wealth has taken the place of state pensions in providing for the elderly.
Future generations won't have the same levels of housing equity as the current retired population. I expect house prices to track inflation or earnings for the foreseeable future. So the gap will need to be filled somehow.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Another way of dating WWs is to see a start to a continuous global conflict of powers at or before 1914, with a process continuing until 6th August 1945 and the post 1945 settlements, military and political, a process which gave us those 1950-2000 years, which were pretty good in many ways, so the 20th C divides neatly into two halves.
And, on this thesis, sometime around 2000 (9/11/2001 possibly) the end of history ended, and global conflict history started again. I don't have really good reasons to think this analysis is entirely wrong but I wish I did.
That’s what used to be called the Long 19th Century (1789-1914)
And in some places WWII continued, after May 1945. There was savage fighting in Greece, Western Ukraine, and Eastern Poland, as well as rival terrors in Italy.
One of the benefits, alongside the problems, of the UK having moved heavily away from state and into personal pension provision is that we don't have this sort of liability on our public balance sheet. The trouble is everything sort of fits together in different ways as a result. Our pensioners get nowhere near as much from the state as in many European countries, even after the triple lock, but personal pensions don't provide anywhere near that level of income either. Instead, our retired population own vast wealth in the form of housing, most of which is owned outright with no mortgage. Housing wealth has taken the place of state pensions in providing for the elderly.
Future generations won't have the same levels of housing equity as the current retired population. I expect house prices to track inflation or earnings for the foreseeable future. So the gap will need to be filled somehow.
"Generation Rent" is a retirement disaster waiting to happen.
Unless the plan is to end the concept of retirement.
But we assured repeatedly on here by the PB Trump Arse Lickers / Bedwetters that RFK quitting would be good for their man.
Any sign of this? No.
As many of us said at the time, it appears to have made sod all difference.
Funny old world.
On the CNN state polls the EC would be 273 Harris and 246 Trump and if Trump won tied Pennsylvania 273 Harris to 265 Trump ie the closest EC result since 2000 when it was Bush 271 and Gore 266
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Unless Russia invaded France, its closest European neighbour with nukes I doubt it would escalate to nukes and China if it invaded Taiwan would probably just face the same issue Russia has in Ukraine. Western sanctions and maybe some arms supplies drops to Taiwan but nothing more
Reassuring it's not quite so bad here, or a grim foretaste of the future? France's pensions funding crisis (worth reading the thread, its very interesting):
One of the benefits, alongside the problems, of the UK having moved heavily away from state and into personal pension provision is that we don't have this sort of liability on our public balance sheet. The trouble is everything sort of fits together in different ways as a result. Our pensioners get nowhere near as much from the state as in many European countries, even after the triple lock, but personal pensions don't provide anywhere near that level of income either. Instead, our retired population own vast wealth in the form of housing, most of which is owned outright with no mortgage. Housing wealth has taken the place of state pensions in providing for the elderly.
Future generations won't have the same levels of housing equity as the current retired population. I expect house prices to track inflation or earnings for the foreseeable future. So the gap will need to be filled somehow.
"Obviously we should be happy that so few pensioners in France at risk of poverty.
But then you realise France is spending 350 bn on the age group least likely to be poor"
Mr. Leon, it isn't even the greatest decline in British history. When the Romans left, things collapsed. De-urbanisation, trade absolutely dislocated, loss of military capacity, coinage giving way to barter, political fragmentation, endemic warfare, collapsing living standards.
That’s not even a comparison, that’s a category error
Both the First Brexit (@morrisdancer) and the Second Brexit (CoE) were more traumatic and significant than the third
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Unless Russia invaded France, its closest European neighbour with nukes I doubt it would escalate to nukes and China if it invaded Taiwan would probably just face the same issue Russia has in Ukraine. Western sanctions and maybe some arms supplies drops to Taiwan but nothing more
As always I appreciate your deadpan reassurance. Whenever you're worrying about potential armageddon, just ask CHATHyufd.
Can I risk a summary of Moore-Bick? Competence, the rule of law, good faith and honesty are of much greater importance than all other factors in running the world and are very hard to achieve.
And UKplc and UK governance are worse than you can imagine.
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Unless Russia invaded France, its closest European neighbour with nukes I doubt it would escalate to nukes and China if it invaded Taiwan would probably just face the same issue Russia has in Ukraine. Western sanctions and maybe some arms supplies drops to Taiwan but nothing more
As always I appreciate your deadpan reassurance. Whenever you're worrying about potential armageddon, just ask CHATHyufd.
Such a scenario would also ease worries about the French pensions liabilities, so it's all sunny, really.
But we assured repeatedly on here by the PB Trump Arse Lickers / Bedwetters that RFK quitting would be good for their man.
Any sign of this? No.
As many of us said at the time, it appears to have made sod all difference.
Funny old world.
On the CNN state polls the EC would be 273 Harris and 246 Trump and if Trump won tied Pennsylvania 273 Harris to 265 Trump ie the closest EC result since 2000 when it was Bush 271 and Gore 266
Who do you think there are most of?
1. Male Trump supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Harris because they are afraid that their Democrat wives might somehow find out their true intentions
or
2. Female Harris supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Trump because they are afraid that their MAGA husbands might somehow find out their true intentions
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Unless Russia invaded France, its closest European neighbour with nukes I doubt it would escalate to nukes and China if it invaded Taiwan would probably just face the same issue Russia has in Ukraine. Western sanctions and maybe some arms supplies drops to Taiwan but nothing more
You've missed a comma there. Either after neighbour which geographically rubbish and I'm sure you didn't mean it, or after the first nukes.
Watching PMQs, thinking Rishi is doing a pretty good job. SKS good bat back at Kemi, but other than that he just looks a bit flappy and snarly. Certainly not someone who has just won a 200 seat majority and should be commanding all he can see.
Can I risk a summary of Moore-Bick? Competence, the rule of law, good faith and honesty are of much greater importance than all other factors in running the world and are very hard to achieve.
And UKplc and UK governance are worse than you can imagine.
The most damning thing from that report, all the deaths were avoidable.
Watching PMQs, thinking Rishi is doing a pretty good job. SKS good bat back at Kemi, but other than that he just looks a bit flappy and snarly. Certainly not someone who has just won a 200 seat majority and should be commanding all he can see.
Sunak is far better than any candidate to take over
Are we at or passing peak Elmu? He can intimidate and oppress mortals with his wealth, social media reach and phalanx of clone lab grown lawyers but if he takes on the Republic of Brazil and/or the EU then he's going to come off second best.
He does seem to have abandoned any pretense that buying Twitter was a sound business move and fully embraced it as a personal propaganda machine
His argument now is that $44bn was “not the price of Twitter but the price of free speech”. Its quite a good line
I agree he does say some mad stuff on there. At the same time he also allows some pretty wild abuse of himself - which I find surprising for a guy with a thin skin
In the round I think Free Speech TwiX is a good thing, not least because it has revealed just how biased to the left Twitter was before. I do not expect PB to agree with this
Twitter was biased to the right, because its algorithms propagated tweets with highest engagement, even if just ideological opponents refuting OP's argument, and these were generally right-wing tweets.
Watching PMQs, thinking Rishi is doing a pretty good job. SKS good bat back at Kemi, but other than that he just looks a bit flappy and snarly. Certainly not someone who has just won a 200 seat majority and should be commanding all he can see.
Sunak is far better than any candidate to take over
Just a terrible PM, who inherited a terrible set of circumstances who entirely lacked political nous.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Another way of dating WWs is to see a start to a continuous global conflict of powers at or before 1914, with a process continuing until 6th August 1945 and the post 1945 settlements, military and political, a process which gave us those 1950-2000 years, which were pretty good in many ways, so the 20th C divides neatly into two halves.
And, on this thesis, sometime around 2000 (9/11/2001 possibly) the end of history ended, and global conflict history started again. I don't have really good reasons to think this analysis is entirely wrong but I wish I did.
That’s what used to be called the Long 19th Century (1789-1914)
Which would then go 1914-1945+ World War post 1945-2001 The post WW settlement (currently called the good old days) 2001 (9/11)-??? The nameless now of permacrisis - the world where Trump can be POTUS, Sudan can be destroyed without the west noticing, Russia can invade Ukraine which can invade Russia etc, climate change, a choice of armageddons and so on.
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Unless Russia invaded France, its closest European neighbour with nukes I doubt it would escalate to nukes and China if it invaded Taiwan would probably just face the same issue Russia has in Ukraine. Western sanctions and maybe some arms supplies drops to Taiwan but nothing more
In a way, Ukraine's occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast has now made a future nuclear war a lot more likely.
Your post suggests that invading a nuclear power is a big no-no, and would be met by a nuclear response. I don't think that's a controversial opinion, and no nuclear power has seen their internationally-recognised borders breached - until now.
And there's been no nuclear response. So where is the nuclear red line? How close to Moscow is too close?
If no-one knows where the red line is then it becomes a lot easier to cross it.
Previously countries have been vague about their nuclear red lines, because being explicit implicitly permits enemy countries to do everything up to your red line. So vagueness had deterrent value. But Ukraine has progressively crystallised that vagueness, and so it doesn't work that way any more.
Mr. Leon, it isn't even the greatest decline in British history. When the Romans left, things collapsed. De-urbanisation, trade absolutely dislocated, loss of military capacity, coinage giving way to barter, political fragmentation, endemic warfare, collapsing living standards.
That’s not even a comparison, that’s a category error
Both the First Brexit (@morrisdancer) and the Second Brexit (CoE) were more traumatic and significant than the third
Watching PMQs, thinking Rishi is doing a pretty good job. SKS good bat back at Kemi, but other than that he just looks a bit flappy and snarly. Certainly not someone who has just won a 200 seat majority and should be commanding all he can see.
SKS is ..... was ..... an experienced lawyer, but he's not an experienced politician. And, sometimes anyway, it shows. Same with Sunak.
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Unless Russia invaded France, its closest European neighbour with nukes I doubt it would escalate to nukes and China if it invaded Taiwan would probably just face the same issue Russia has in Ukraine. Western sanctions and maybe some arms supplies drops to Taiwan but nothing more
In a way, Ukraine's occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast has now made a future nuclear war a lot more likely.
Your post suggests that invading a nuclear power is a big no-no, and would be met by a nuclear response. I don't think that's a controversial opinion, and no nuclear power has seen their internationally-recognised borders breached - until now.
And there's been no nuclear response. So where is the nuclear red line? How close to Moscow is too close?
If no-one knows where the red line is then it becomes a lot easier to cross it.
Previously countries have been vague about their nuclear red lines, because being explicit implicitly permits enemy countries to do everything up to your red line. So vagueness had deterrent value. But Ukraine has progressively crystallised that vagueness, and so it doesn't work that way any more.
The western nuclear redline is probably Russia sending nukes to France, the US or UK or France, or probably if it invaded those nations.
Ukraine and Taiwan are not in NATO so never were redlines for the West. In theory while NATO nations would go to war if Russia invaded Poland or another NATO nation I doubt it would go nuclear from a western point of view unless Russia attacked a western nation with nukes as above
From a Russian point of view though as you say it has now been invaded and is a nuclear power. Ukraine is therefore taking a risk Putin won't respond with nukes, even tactical ones. If I were Zelensky I would have made my point and now just focus on securing Ukranian borders and make them Russian free not push further into Russia
'Could' and 'may' are the important words here. Of course they can be sued, anyone can sue or be sued. The issue is who would win.
It would be scandalous if Oasis etc lost. They were selling tickets way below the price they could have got if they started high and went down if any were left unsold at £5,000 (or whatever) a go.
Watching PMQs, thinking Rishi is doing a pretty good job. SKS good bat back at Kemi, but other than that he just looks a bit flappy and snarly. Certainly not someone who has just won a 200 seat majority and should be commanding all he can see.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Another way of dating WWs is to see a start to a continuous global conflict of powers at or before 1914, with a process continuing until 6th August 1945 and the post 1945 settlements, military and political, a process which gave us those 1950-2000 years, which were pretty good in many ways, so the 20th C divides neatly into two halves.
And, on this thesis, sometime around 2000 (9/11/2001 possibly) the end of history ended, and global conflict history started again. I don't have really good reasons to think this analysis is entirely wrong but I wish I did.
That’s what used to be called the Long 19th Century (1789-1914)
Which would then go 1914-1945+ World War post 1945-2001 The post WW settlement (currently called the good old days) 2001 (9/11)-??? The nameless now of permacrisis - the world where Trump can be POTUS, Sudan can be destroyed without the west noticing, Russia can invade Ukraine which can invade Russia etc, climate change, a choice of armageddons and so on.
We spent a long time in the 50's and 60's worrying about The Bomb. And a lot of my friends spent two years shooting at, and being shot at by, what were, or at any rate alleged to be, our country's enemies over the period 1950-65.
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
There's a timeline from here that leads to global thermonuclear war. It goes:
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war 2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction 3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland 4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
Unless Russia invaded France, its closest European neighbour with nukes I doubt it would escalate to nukes and China if it invaded Taiwan would probably just face the same issue Russia has in Ukraine. Western sanctions and maybe some arms supplies drops to Taiwan but nothing more
In a way, Ukraine's occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast has now made a future nuclear war a lot more likely.
Your post suggests that invading a nuclear power is a big no-no, and would be met by a nuclear response. I don't think that's a controversial opinion, and no nuclear power has seen their internationally-recognised borders breached - until now.
And there's been no nuclear response. So where is the nuclear red line? How close to Moscow is too close?
If no-one knows where the red line is then it becomes a lot easier to cross it.
Previously countries have been vague about their nuclear red lines, because being explicit implicitly permits enemy countries to do everything up to your red line. So vagueness had deterrent value. But Ukraine has progressively crystallised that vagueness, and so it doesn't work that way any more.
iirc the Russian nuke doctrine is they will be used if there is an "existential" risk to the state.
Obs that would be a political decision over the meaning of the word in the end but I doubt Kursk is sufficient to qualify. Putin may want to start throwing them around on the battlefield but I doubt his generals are.
But we assured repeatedly on here by the PB Trump Arse Lickers / Bedwetters that RFK quitting would be good for their man.
Any sign of this? No.
As many of us said at the time, it appears to have made sod all difference.
Funny old world.
On the CNN state polls the EC would be 273 Harris and 246 Trump and if Trump won tied Pennsylvania 273 Harris to 265 Trump ie the closest EC result since 2000 when it was Bush 271 and Gore 266
Who do you think there are most of?
1. Male Trump supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Harris because they are afraid that their Democrat wives might somehow find out their true intentions
or
2. Female Harris supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Trump because they are afraid that their MAGA husbands might somehow find out their true intentions
That would have been seen in 2020 too and certainly 2016 when Hillary was Dem nominee but if anything polls underestimated Trump in swing states
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Germany was the most dangerous enemy, so that made sense even if it was Japan that actually hit America first.
Certainly from our perspective, less so from the American, and even less so from the Australian.
The Pacific War had to wait more for logistic reasons. It takes a while to build all those ships
I only found out recently that the Royal Navy took part in the Battle of Okinawa. In fact, by the end of the war, the British Pacific Fleet was immense. Over a million British, Empire and Commonwealth soldiers were set to invade Japan.
I'd like to read more about it, it's been hardly written about.
I’d also like to know how this country has gone from being the greatest empire on earth, with an “immense Pacific fleet” and a million men under arms in the Far East, to being so spineless and craven we cannot even defend the English Channel AND ALL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY
It must be the greatest and fastest decline in human history?
a) We were an Empire b) We bankrupted ourselves c) We could have done better
Are we at or passing peak Elmu? He can intimidate and oppress mortals with his wealth, social media reach and phalanx of clone lab grown lawyers but if he takes on the Republic of Brazil and/or the EU then he's going to come off second best.
He does seem to have abandoned any pretense that buying Twitter was a sound business move and fully embraced it as a personal propaganda machine
His argument now is that $44bn was “not the price of Twitter but the price of free speech”. Its quite a good line
I agree he does say some mad stuff on there. At the same time he also allows some pretty wild abuse of himself - which I find surprising for a guy with a thin skin
In the round I think Free Speech TwiX is a good thing, not least because it has revealed just how biased to the left Twitter was before. I do not expect PB to agree with this
Twitter was biased to the right, because its algorithms propagated tweets with highest engagement, even if just ideological opponents refuting OP's argument, and these were generally right-wing tweets.
The price of "free speech" for him is surely the 80% or whatever it is now that he has knocked off the value of Twitter?
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Germany was the most dangerous enemy, so that made sense even if it was Japan that actually hit America first.
Certainly from our perspective, less so from the American, and even less so from the Australian.
The Pacific War had to wait more for logistic reasons. It takes a while to build all those ships
I only found out recently that the Royal Navy took part in the Battle of Okinawa. In fact, by the end of the war, the British Pacific Fleet was immense. Over a million British, Empire and Commonwealth soldiers were set to invade Japan.
I'd like to read more about it, it's been hardly written about.
I’d also like to know how this country has gone from being the greatest empire on earth, with an “immense Pacific fleet” and a million men under arms in the Far East, to being so spineless and craven we cannot even defend the English Channel AND ALL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY
It must be the greatest and fastest decline in human history?
a) We were an Empire b) We bankrupted ourselves c) We could have done better
d) we decided that killing unarmed civilians in the Channel was a bit off.
The last government did feed the reduced channel crossers Domino's Hawaiian Pizza, so there *is* that.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Germany was the most dangerous enemy, so that made sense even if it was Japan that actually hit America first.
Certainly from our perspective, less so from the American, and even less so from the Australian.
The Pacific War had to wait more for logistic reasons. It takes a while to build all those ships
I only found out recently that the Royal Navy took part in the Battle of Okinawa. In fact, by the end of the war, the British Pacific Fleet was immense. Over a million British, Empire and Commonwealth soldiers were set to invade Japan.
I'd like to read more about it, it's been hardly written about.
I’d also like to know how this country has gone from being the greatest empire on earth, with an “immense Pacific fleet” and a million men under arms in the Far East, to being so spineless and craven we cannot even defend the English Channel AND ALL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY
It must be the greatest and fastest decline in human history?
a) We were an Empire b) We bankrupted ourselves c) We could have done better
d) we decided that killing unarmed civilians in the Channel was a bit off.
The last government did feed the reduced channel crossers Domino's Hawaiian Pizza, so there *is* that.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
It's only a monopoly in the relevant sense if Oasis are putting unfair obstacles in the way of you or me booking Wembley and selling tickets to a boringly derivative rock and roll concert. Actually the music business is remarkably unmonopolistic - Oasis can't even stop you doing a covers concert as Quoasis or whatever because of the odd copyright rules. So strap on your guitar and play.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Germany was the most dangerous enemy, so that made sense even if it was Japan that actually hit America first.
Certainly from our perspective, less so from the American, and even less so from the Australian.
The Pacific War had to wait more for logistic reasons. It takes a while to build all those ships
No, because Japan depended on oil for its fleet that could be, and was, easily cut-off and couldn't project much force thereafter, nor did it innovate much in technology.
Germany was developing nuclear weapons, jet fighters, cutting-edge tanks and effectively projecting force with submarines - and could have gone further unchecked, particularly if the Soviets had been defeated.
Germany was a bigger threat to the US.
I’d say that the IJN was technologically superior to the German Navy.
In terms of stuff that actually got used.
Their aircraft carriers for instance. Though they did turn out to have glass jaws.
To be fair, the Japanese walked into a massive elephant trap at Midway thanks to the US cracking Japan’s SIGINT
If the Japanese had managed to sink the entire US Navy, within 18 months, the US navy would have been bigger than the IJN.
The relative construction rates were that absurd. The US started cancelling ships, because while they could have afforded and manned them, there was no need for them. The submarines ran out of targets, for example, and most spent 1945 picking up downed pilots…
There was no way Japan could have won.
My Economics teacher was in the Australian navy during the war. When the war ended, his ship passed Pacific islands with vast quantities of USA vehicles just left there - tractors, bulldozers, lorries, jeeps etc. When he asked why were they just being left there, he was told it would harm the USA manufacturing industry too much to take them back for re-use.
Remembering my visit to New Zealand in 1980 I wouldn't be surprised if much of these USA war vehicles ended up on the streets and sheep farms of New Zealand.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
Not really wanting to defend Neil in general, but surely he's right here. As on that logic, everything that's not a pure commodity is a monopoly. Gail's are using monopoly power to price artisanal sourdough bread expensively - I'm not going to be satisfied with Coop sliced white?
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Germany was the most dangerous enemy, so that made sense even if it was Japan that actually hit America first.
Certainly from our perspective, less so from the American, and even less so from the Australian.
The Pacific War had to wait more for logistic reasons. It takes a while to build all those ships
I only found out recently that the Royal Navy took part in the Battle of Okinawa. In fact, by the end of the war, the British Pacific Fleet was immense. Over a million British, Empire and Commonwealth soldiers were set to invade Japan.
I'd like to read more about it, it's been hardly written about.
I’d also like to know how this country has gone from being the greatest empire on earth, with an “immense Pacific fleet” and a million men under arms in the Far East, to being so spineless and craven we cannot even defend the English Channel AND ALL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY
It must be the greatest and fastest decline in human history?
a) We were an Empire b) We bankrupted ourselves c) We could have done better
d) we decided that killing unarmed civilians in the Channel was a bit off.
The last government did feed the reduced channel crossers Domino's Hawaiian Pizza, so there *is* that.
I fear that d) is not an unanimously held view.
Despite various fan-fic grade stuff written by the opponents of the last government, they did not even attempt to tow boats back to France, against the will of the occupants.
Because that would have led to mass drownings - it did when it was done in the Mediterranean.
Ed Miliband will be the ruining of this government, the pretence that fuel bills will be many times lower by 2030. Miliband is doing what he said he would do. We should all be worried, at what point will the PM realise that none of it adds up?
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
Yes but in legal terms he might be right. Competition law (and economics) often assumes things are fungible which are not. There is no monopoly of Premier League matches, for instance, but if you want to watch a particular match, there is. IANAL. IANAE.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
Not really wanting to defend Neil in general, but surely he's right here. As on that logic, everything that's not a pure commodity is a monopoly. Gail's are using monopoly power to price artisanal sourdough bread expensively - I'm not going to be satisfied with Coop sliced white?
And my small start up manufacturing and selling Rolex watches was shut down by some rich Swiss guys totally abusing their market dominance.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
It's only a monopoly in the relevant sense if Oasis are putting unfair obstacles in the way of you or me booking Wembley and selling tickets to a boringly derivative rock and roll concert. Actually the music business is remarkably unmonopolistic - Oasis can't even stop you doing a covers concert as Quoasis or whatever because of the odd copyright rules. So strap on your guitar and play.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
It’s on the borders, as are many examples of markets where brand is powerful. Calls to mind a discussion on here a few months ago about product categories where there is one dominant brand, or where each brand is so distinct that people only want that one. Sort of parallel to but different from Veblen goods.
Oasis falls into the latter category. As such I’d put it alongside:
- Harley Davidson: there are loads of bike makes but the sort of people who want Harleys want Harleys. - Iconic restaurants like The Fat Duck or Troisgros. Yes there are plenty of others of similar quality, but you booked Troisgros because you want Troisgros - Disneyworld. Yes your children have a choice of several very good Merlin owned theme parks here, or they could go to Disneyland Paris, but no they really want to go to Orlando (I thank the gods my children were never that way inclined)
Not quite monopolistic, but extremely strong brand-based pricing power.
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Germany was the most dangerous enemy, so that made sense even if it was Japan that actually hit America first.
Certainly from our perspective, less so from the American, and even less so from the Australian.
The Pacific War had to wait more for logistic reasons. It takes a while to build all those ships
I only found out recently that the Royal Navy took part in the Battle of Okinawa. In fact, by the end of the war, the British Pacific Fleet was immense. Over a million British, Empire and Commonwealth soldiers were set to invade Japan.
I'd like to read more about it, it's been hardly written about.
I’d also like to know how this country has gone from being the greatest empire on earth, with an “immense Pacific fleet” and a million men under arms in the Far East, to being so spineless and craven we cannot even defend the English Channel AND ALL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY
It must be the greatest and fastest decline in human history?
a) We were an Empire b) We bankrupted ourselves c) We could have done better
d) we decided that killing unarmed civilians in the Channel was a bit off.
The last government did feed the reduced channel crossers Domino's Hawaiian Pizza, so there *is* that.
I fear that d) is not an unanimously held view.
Despite various fan-fic grade stuff written by the opponents of the last government, they did not even attempt to tow boats back to France, against the will of the occupants.
Because that would have led to mass drownings - it did when it was done in the Mediterranean.
They didn't, no, but some private individuals, including occasionally here, seemed keen on the killing unarmed civilians approach.
But we assured repeatedly on here by the PB Trump Arse Lickers / Bedwetters that RFK quitting would be good for their man.
Any sign of this? No.
As many of us said at the time, it appears to have made sod all difference.
Funny old world.
You were also repeatedly assured, and not just by me, that Pennsylvania remains the key. Tied there is not good news.
What I think is tolerably clear is that very substantial momentum Harris got when selected has somewhat run its course. She is not falling back but she is not continuing to gain either. It's put her fractionally in the lead but the deal is not sealed. The debate is going to be a high risk event for both of them.
But we assured repeatedly on here by the PB Trump Arse Lickers / Bedwetters that RFK quitting would be good for their man.
Any sign of this? No.
As many of us said at the time, it appears to have made sod all difference.
Funny old world.
On the CNN state polls the EC would be 273 Harris and 246 Trump and if Trump won tied Pennsylvania 273 Harris to 265 Trump ie the closest EC result since 2000 when it was Bush 271 and Gore 266
Who do you think there are most of?
1. Male Trump supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Harris because they are afraid that their Democrat wives might somehow find out their true intentions
or
2. Female Harris supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Trump because they are afraid that their MAGA husbands might somehow find out their true intentions
That would have been seen in 2020 too and certainly 2016 when Hillary was Dem nominee but if anything polls underestimated Trump in swing states
Any explanation of that effect? I'm genuinely curious.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
If Oasis don't want to get on stage for less than £1,000 a ticket then I don't think anyone has any business insisting they must sell their tickets for £80.
There's obviously an imbalance between demand and supply, because Oasis don't want to do gigs every night of the year for five years. It's normal for prices to rise to match demand and supply in this situation.
The exploitative bit is that the tickets were advertised at one price, but when people got to the head of the queue they found the prices were much higher, and had only 90 seconds to decide if they wanted to pay. That shouldn't be allowed. It's a psychologically manipulative pressurised sales tactic, and the element of dishonesty crosses the line.
Something like an auction would be a much more transparent way of matching what people were willing to pay, and they'd know what they were getting themselves into from the outset.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
Not really wanting to defend Neil in general, but surely he's right here. As on that logic, everything that's not a pure commodity is a monopoly. Gail's are using monopoly power to price artisanal sourdough bread expensively - I'm not going to be satisfied with Coop sliced white?
Oasis and their agents are being attacked for bad practice when they could just have sold tickets to the highest bidders and made more money instead of underpricing. The high resale price shows that the market price is higher than Oasis are asking.
Better bargains elsewhere. Figaro and La Traviata are on at Covent Garden at £12-£200.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
Yes but in legal terms he might be right. Competition law (and economics) often assumes things are fungible which are not. There is no monopoly of Premier League matches, for instance, but if you want to watch a particular match, there is. IANAL. IANAE.
I think Pearl Jam’s argument was against the terms of the contracts Ticketmaster signed with venues and disclosure of fees / costs of tickets for consumer. So more unfair terms / sharp practices rather than strict monopoly (although they also argued that as they couldn’t choose their own ticket supplier for their own gigs).
Although appreciate this was in the states and Pearl Jam were simply the second / third best grunge band of the nineties.
EDIT I reckon the CMA could have a go at TM for the surge pricing approach - i.e. if you’ve been holding all day expecting £100 tickets to get presented with tickets for £355 could be considered exploitative (bait and switch type stuff).
Ed Miliband will be the ruining of this government, the pretence that fuel bills will be many times lower by 2030. Miliband is doing what he said he would do. We should all be worried, at what point will the PM realise that none of it adds up?
Are we at or passing peak Elmu? He can intimidate and oppress mortals with his wealth, social media reach and phalanx of clone lab grown lawyers but if he takes on the Republic of Brazil and/or the EU then he's going to come off second best.
He does seem to have abandoned any pretense that buying Twitter was a sound business move and fully embraced it as a personal propaganda machine
His argument now is that $44bn was “not the price of Twitter but the price of free speech”. Its quite a good line
I agree he does say some mad stuff on there. At the same time he also allows some pretty wild abuse of himself - which I find surprising for a guy with a thin skin
In the round I think Free Speech TwiX is a good thing, not least because it has revealed just how biased to the left Twitter was before. I do not expect PB to agree with this
It's not free speech though.
Posts which call Republicans "wingnuts" are deleted for violating the terms of service on abusive speech.
Posts which call for violence against refugees or brown people are just fine and aren't taken down.
It's selective speech. I find it rather telling that you're more comfortable with the current balance of the bias than the previous iteration.
Well yeah. I’m on the right
I find it rather telling that you’re more comfortable with the earlier left wing yawn blah fucksake you pompous tiny dicked wanker-of-maggots
Watching PMQs, thinking Rishi is doing a pretty good job. SKS good bat back at Kemi, but other than that he just looks a bit flappy and snarly. Certainly not someone who has just won a 200 seat majority and should be commanding all he can see.
SKS is ..... was ..... an experienced lawyer, but he's not an experienced politician. And, sometimes anyway, it shows. Same with Sunak.
If Sunak had had political nous he would never have removed Boris but let Boris lead the Tories to defeat this year, which would have been narrower with less leakage to Reform. He would now be heir apparent to be Tory leader and LOTO. David Miliband waited and did not challenge Brown but let him lead Labour to defeat in 2010 and then went on to stand for the Labour leadership and won the MPs and members voters, Ed Miliband only narrowly won the Labour leadership with union votes.
Starmer was more sensible too in that he let Corbyn lead Labour to defeat in 2019 and then he was ready to take over and now has won a GE and is PM
Can I risk a summary of Moore-Bick? Competence, the rule of law, good faith and honesty are of much greater importance than all other factors in running the world and are very hard to achieve.
And UKplc and UK governance are worse than you can imagine.
The most damning thing from that report, all the deaths were avoidable.
Watching PMQs, thinking Rishi is doing a pretty good job. SKS good bat back at Kemi, but other than that he just looks a bit flappy and snarly. Certainly not someone who has just won a 200 seat majority and should be commanding all he can see.
I'm quite enjoying some of these new MP names.
Emma Foody MP, initials ELF.
Talking of Ms Foody, this mornig I heard a radio discussion on the history of the Currywurst. One of the contributors was called Tim Koch (Cook) who is a chef in the city of Essen (food).
Ed Miliband will be the ruining of this government, the pretence that fuel bills will be many times lower by 2030. Miliband is doing what he said he would do. We should all be worried, at what point will the PM realise that none of it adds up?
At the same time as he acknowledges that CO2 build up is already unstoppable and has been for some time, and that if the science is right we have a problem without a solution and everyone knows this but no-one is saying it?
Are we at or passing peak Elmu? He can intimidate and oppress mortals with his wealth, social media reach and phalanx of clone lab grown lawyers but if he takes on the Republic of Brazil and/or the EU then he's going to come off second best.
He does seem to have abandoned any pretense that buying Twitter was a sound business move and fully embraced it as a personal propaganda machine
His argument now is that $44bn was “not the price of Twitter but the price of free speech”. Its quite a good line
I agree he does say some mad stuff on there. At the same time he also allows some pretty wild abuse of himself - which I find surprising for a guy with a thin skin
In the round I think Free Speech TwiX is a good thing, not least because it has revealed just how biased to the left Twitter was before. I do not expect PB to agree with this
It's not free speech though.
Posts which call Republicans "wingnuts" are deleted for violating the terms of service on abusive speech.
Posts which call for violence against refugees or brown people are just fine and aren't taken down.
It's selective speech. I find it rather telling that you're more comfortable with the current balance of the bias than the previous iteration.
Well yeah. I’m on the right
I find it rather telling that you’re more comfortable with the earlier left wing yawn blah fucksake you pompous tiny dicked wanker-of-maggots
Wait until Tucker and this 'historian' hear about the other guy.
Liberals and conservatives alike have turned on Tucker Carlson after controversial podcaster and self-proclaimed historian Darryl Cooper claimed on Carlson’s show that “millions of people ended up dead” in Nazi concentration camps.
Cooper also painted U.K. prime minister Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II.
Carlson said on X that Cooper “may be the best and most honest popular historian in the United States” when posting The Tucker Carlson Show Monday episode, which featured topics like Christianity and authoritarians like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin.
I can see a case of depicting Winston Churchill as villain from the American isolationist perspective. It hinges on what date you consider the start of WW2:
1937 for China and Japan 1939 for Britain, Germany, France, Italy 1941 for Russia and the USA
Churchill made great efforts to involve America in the European War, and in pushing for a Germany first policy, rather than a Pacific war against Japan.
The argument rather falls down as it was Hitler that declared war on the USA, not vice versa.
Germany was the most dangerous enemy, so that made sense even if it was Japan that actually hit America first.
Certainly from our perspective, less so from the American, and even less so from the Australian.
The Pacific War had to wait more for logistic reasons. It takes a while to build all those ships
I only found out recently that the Royal Navy took part in the Battle of Okinawa. In fact, by the end of the war, the British Pacific Fleet was immense. Over a million British, Empire and Commonwealth soldiers were set to invade Japan.
I'd like to read more about it, it's been hardly written about.
I’d also like to know how this country has gone from being the greatest empire on earth, with an “immense Pacific fleet” and a million men under arms in the Far East, to being so spineless and craven we cannot even defend the English Channel AND ALL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY
It must be the greatest and fastest decline in human history?
a) We were an Empire b) We bankrupted ourselves c) We could have done better
d) we decided that killing unarmed civilians in the Channel was a bit off.
The last government did feed the reduced channel crossers Domino's Hawaiian Pizza, so there *is* that.
I fear that d) is not an unanimously held view.
Despite various fan-fic grade stuff written by the opponents of the last government, they did not even attempt to tow boats back to France, against the will of the occupants.
Because that would have led to mass drownings - it did when it was done in the Mediterranean.
They didn't, no, but some private individuals, including occasionally here, seemed keen on the killing unarmed civilians approach.
There's always some of *anything* (See Nigerian Nazis)
But it's worth noting that this doesn't seem to be the view of anyone actually near the crossers, in any capacity. As opposed to, say, the Greek Coastguard.
Andrew Neil is engaged in some TwiX spats over this
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
It's only a monopoly in the relevant sense if Oasis are putting unfair obstacles in the way of you or me booking Wembley and selling tickets to a boringly derivative rock and roll concert. Actually the music business is remarkably unmonopolistic - Oasis can't even stop you doing a covers concert as Quoasis or whatever because of the odd copyright rules. So strap on your guitar and play.
The best way of selling tickets to real fans without too much regard for wealth is to sell them at a physical ticket office (in winter in Manchester), max 2 per person, with a carefully curated and supervised queue. Bring your own tent. (I'm not joking).
Comments
Of course ‘we’ didn’t give a feck about the non aggression pact when we warmly welcomed Stalin into the fold. Nor is our record on protecting Poland, our ostensible casus belli anything to shout about, which is why it’s mumble, mumble when it comes up.
"What are you doing?" He said.
The place went quiet. "Reclaimed Land. Man". Said A Voice in the smokey cellar. I thought it had a bit of a ring but didn't think too much about it. But somehow it spread and months and even years later I'd occasionally hear someone say it to describe where they were what they were doing or even how they felt. People who couldn't possibly have been at the party.
A bit like how New Yorkers use ' COOL'. A word that means whatever you want
Any sign of this? No.
As many of us said at the time, it appears to have made sod all difference.
Funny old world.
As for Poland; what could we have done? What would you have done in 1938 or 1939 to prevent the war, or help Poland win when Germany invaded? Logistically defending them militarily was an impossibility. We did pretty much all we could: saying that an invasion of Poland would lead to war; a red line we declared and kept to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c623vrw92rrt
The report is available here:
https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/phase-2-report
(No, I haven't read it yet...)
Posts which call Republicans "wingnuts" are deleted for violating the terms of service on abusive speech.
Posts which call for violence against refugees or brown people are just fine and aren't taken down.
It's selective speech. I find it rather telling that you're more comfortable with the current balance of the bias than the previous iteration.
https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/24/scientists-warn-starlink-could-screw-up-the-ozone-layer/
First she needs to win a number of those battleground states. But she also needs to 1. win them clearly enough that they don't give MAGA an excuse to take them up to the supreme court which will overturn the results in his favour, 2. somehow rely on Republican controlled state houses not going along with a Trump attempt to overturn each one on other technicalities, 3. win the popular vote, because otherwise Trump's lot will start an insurgency.
Even if she does that I expect various shenanigans. But if the victory is really clear and unambiguous it makes it harder for Trump to do his thing with widespread support.
Exec Summary is 55 pages, https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/CCS0923434692-004_GTI Phase 2_Report Overview_E-Laying_0.pdf
In 2020 the polls claimed larger Biden leads in those states than turned out to be the case.
They also predicted Biden would win Florida and North Carolina:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida#Polling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_North_Carolina#Polling
and much smaller Trump leads in Iowa, Ohio and Texas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa#Polling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio#Polling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas#Polling
Now maybe things are different this year and state polls will be more accurate.
And maybe they will not be.
Sometimes you have to choose the least worst out of a menu of very shitty options.
Don’t want it to clash with the AV or Scottish independence thread I have planned.
Funny it comes at the time of the increased furore over the WFA .
He strenuously denies that as well as the Holocaust.
https://x.com/nymag/status/1831077665362616386?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
Mark Robinson Really Used to Love Porn, According to Guys at the Porn Store
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/north-carolina-republican-mark-robinson-porn-shops.html
1. A close or tied election in the US leading to a constitutional crisis and civil (cold) war
2. The US exiting from global foreign affairs through a mixture of frozen policy and budgets, and domestic distraction
3. The mice playing while the cat is away: China jumping on Taiwan while it has a chance, Russia gaining the upper hand in Ukraine leading to direct intervention from European powers like Poland
4. Either one of those theatres escalating to nukes
So - we know the polls are likely wrong, we don't know which way they'll be wrong. Which means for betting purposes you'll probably have to assume they're correct..
Its was quite common to see three little flags almost as a badge; ours, the Stars and Stripes and the Red Flag.
I don't think you could have got our troops to have fought the Russians.
As the triple ratchet ensures it'll be increased in line with wages this time round - which are +5% or so I think ?
The State polling, showing all six on a knife-edge, is consistent with the national polling.
Churchill was very clear that he saw it a pact to win the war. The lesser of 2 evils.
He was also prepared to go to war with the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe. Which used to be advanced as a sign of his, Churchill's, evil by the Tankie Left.
https://x.com/Valen10Francois/status/1831263397771440308
One of the benefits, alongside the problems, of the UK having moved heavily away from state and into personal pension provision is that we don't have this sort of liability on our public balance sheet. The trouble is everything sort of fits together in different ways as a result. Our pensioners get nowhere near as much from the state as in many European countries, even after the triple lock, but personal pensions don't provide anywhere near that level of income either. Instead, our retired population own vast wealth in the form of housing, most of which is owned outright with no mortgage. Housing wealth has taken the place of state pensions in providing for the elderly.
Future generations won't have the same levels of housing equity as the current retired population. I expect house prices to track inflation or earnings for the foreseeable future. So the gap will need to be filled somehow.
Then again, the press has difficulty with 1+1 (See Murder Tuesday)
EDIT: Mind you, our self certified, local, Genius had trouble with Murder Tuesday. We had to explain it to him slowly, with small words, as I recall.
Unless the plan is to end the concept of retirement.
But then you realise France is spending 350 bn on the age group least likely to be poor"
350 bn!
Whenever you're worrying about potential armageddon, just ask CHATHyufd.
And UKplc and UK governance are worse than you can imagine.
1. Male Trump supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Harris because they are afraid that their Democrat wives might somehow find out their true intentions
or
2. Female Harris supporters who tell pollsters that they are voting for Trump because they are afraid that their MAGA husbands might somehow find out their true intentions
Oasis fans can sue Ticketmaster over dynamic pricing, say lawyers
Selling model seeing charges rise with high demand and low supply branded ‘very untransparent system’ that may have breached consumer law
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/03/oasis-fans-sue-ticketmaster-dynamic-pricing-law/
1914-1945+ World War
post 1945-2001 The post WW settlement (currently called the good old days)
2001 (9/11)-??? The nameless now of permacrisis - the world where Trump can be POTUS, Sudan can be destroyed without the west noticing, Russia can invade Ukraine which can invade Russia etc, climate change, a choice of armageddons and so on.
Your post suggests that invading a nuclear power is a big no-no, and would be met by a nuclear response. I don't think that's a controversial opinion, and no nuclear power has seen their internationally-recognised borders breached - until now.
And there's been no nuclear response. So where is the nuclear red line? How close to Moscow is too close?
If no-one knows where the red line is then it becomes a lot easier to cross it.
Previously countries have been vague about their nuclear red lines, because being explicit implicitly permits enemy countries to do everything up to your red line. So vagueness had deterrent value. But Ukraine has progressively crystallised that vagueness, and so it doesn't work that way any more.
Same with Sunak.
Ukraine and Taiwan are not in NATO so never were redlines for the West. In theory while NATO nations would go to war if Russia invaded Poland or another NATO nation I doubt it would go nuclear from a western point of view unless Russia attacked a western nation with nukes as above
From a Russian point of view though as you say it has now been invaded and is a nuclear power. Ukraine is therefore taking a risk Putin won't respond with nukes, even tactical ones. If I were Zelensky I would have made my point and now just focus on securing Ukranian borders and make them Russian free not push further into Russia
It would be scandalous if Oasis etc lost. They were selling tickets way below the price they could have got if they started high and went down if any were left unsold at £5,000 (or whatever) a go.
Emma Foody MP, initials ELF.
Obs that would be a political decision over the meaning of the word in the end but I doubt Kursk is sufficient to qualify. Putin may want to start throwing them around on the battlefield but I doubt his generals are.
No2AV 68%
Yes2AV 32%
Someone said this is "monopoly" price gouging, and Neil replied that is not a monopoly. Other gigs are available...
I don't think Neil is right.
If you want to see Oasis at Wembley you are not going to be satisfied with Coldplay in Cardiff
b) We bankrupted ourselves
c) We could have done better
The last government did feed the reduced channel crossers Domino's Hawaiian Pizza, so there *is* that.
Because that would have led to mass drownings - it did when it was done in the Mediterranean.
Oasis falls into the latter category. As such I’d put it alongside:
- Harley Davidson: there are loads of bike makes but the sort of people who want Harleys want Harleys.
- Iconic restaurants like The Fat Duck or Troisgros. Yes there are plenty of others of similar quality, but you booked Troisgros because you want Troisgros
- Disneyworld. Yes your children have a choice of several very good Merlin owned theme parks here, or they could go to Disneyland Paris, but no they really want to go to Orlando (I thank the gods my children were never that way inclined)
Not quite monopolistic, but extremely strong brand-based pricing power.
What I think is tolerably clear is that very substantial momentum Harris got when selected has somewhat run its course. She is not falling back but she is not continuing to gain either. It's put her fractionally in the lead but the deal is not sealed. The debate is going to be a high risk event for both of them.
There's obviously an imbalance between demand and supply, because Oasis don't want to do gigs every night of the year for five years. It's normal for prices to rise to match demand and supply in this situation.
The exploitative bit is that the tickets were advertised at one price, but when people got to the head of the queue they found the prices were much higher, and had only 90 seconds to decide if they wanted to pay. That shouldn't be allowed. It's a psychologically manipulative pressurised sales tactic, and the element of dishonesty crosses the line.
Something like an auction would be a much more transparent way of matching what people were willing to pay, and they'd know what they were getting themselves into from the outset.
Better bargains elsewhere. Figaro and La Traviata are on at Covent Garden at £12-£200.
Although appreciate this was in the states and Pearl Jam were simply the second / third best grunge band of the nineties.
EDIT I reckon the CMA could have a go at TM for the surge pricing approach - i.e. if you’ve been holding all day expecting £100 tickets to get presented with tickets for £355 could be considered exploitative (bait and switch type stuff).
I find it rather telling that you’re more comfortable with the earlier left wing yawn blah fucksake you pompous tiny dicked wanker-of-maggots
Starmer was more sensible too in that he let Corbyn lead Labour to defeat in 2019 and then he was ready to take over and now has won a GE and is PM
musictheir wallets.Has she secured a premier class ticket or just smiling at those 90s memories?
But it's worth noting that this doesn't seem to be the view of anyone actually near the crossers, in any capacity. As opposed to, say, the Greek Coastguard.