Not very clever from Cleverly – politicalbetting.com
Not very clever from Cleverly – politicalbetting.com
James Cleverly condemns Chagos Islands deal – despite being the one who initiated talksTories cannot be trusted everSay one thing do the opposite Hypocrisy and liars https://t.co/ox7R5eJzkU
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cleverely may have done the former; Labour have done the latter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQQCq1ijRjc
A good, amateur video made by an Australian who went around Ukraine earlier in the year. One that should be watched, and sadly will be ignored, by those who think that Ukraine should be forced to cede territory for 'peace'.
Perhaps, if "Lord Cameron (pbuh)" was so good, he should have initiated talks on a 'better' deal whilst he was FS?
No deal is better than a bad deal.
The sleeping dogs have woken up
This government did.
That's a rather important point that goes whizzing merrily over your head.
I see nothing in the deal to question anyway. The Tories should own it, it makes sense. It’s what they clearly set out to do.
As for the Falklands I’m a great believer in self determination. For as long as the residents want to be British, that should be the case. What’s more, like France and the USA did with Reunion or Hawaii, I would offer them the opportunity to be a core part of the UK. With representation in Parliament.
For too long the British elite has treated ‘overseas territories’ for its own convenience. Most egregiously to hide their money. That has reached the point where it has harmed the home country. Let’s deal with these anomalies,
The problem for Labour is that while 92% of Brits have never heard of Diego Garcia and don’t really care - everyone can see a terrible deal because everyone makes transactions daily. We are PAYING for a third party to seize our property, 600,000 sq km of glittering Indian Ocean
“White women added to NHS eligibility list to donate stem cells”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/04/white-women-added-to-nhs-eligibility-list-to-donate-stem-cells
I’m genuinely stumped. Why is there a racial eligibility criterion for “donating stem cells”?!
- economy tanking
- black hole lies
- riots
- North Sea shutdown
- sleaze
and now Chagos,
And all within 3 months
https://nypost.com/2024/10/03/us-news/feds-say-theres-no-money-left-to-respond-to-hurricanes-after-fema-used-640-9m-this-year-on-migrants/
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas set off outrage Wednesday when he told reporters that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) “does not have the funds” to see Americans through the rest of this Atlantic hurricane season — after the agency spent more than $1.4 billion since the fall of 2022 to address the migrant crisis.
“We are meeting the immediate needs with the money that we have,” Mayorkas said during a press gaggle on Air Force One en route to tour damage from Hurricane Helene in South and North Carolina.
“We are expecting another hurricane hitting,” he added. “We do not have the funds. FEMA does not have the funds to make it through the season and what — what is imminent.”
People affected by the hurricane have been offered $750 by the federal government. Which they need to apply for online, in areas with no electricity or internet service.
That £22bn sounds very familiar so I can see WFA coming back again alongside HS2 and the lower Thames Crossing (which should be confirmed / cancelled today).
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Government this inept at announcement timing let alone everything else
https://www.blood.co.uk/news-and-campaigns/news-and-statements/recruiting-donors-to-the-bbmr/
"We are limited on the number of donors that we can recruit annually due to both financial constraints and our capacity to type the donors and we need to make sure we recruit only those donors who are most likely to be selected to donate for a patient. Therefore we have made the decision to change our donor recruitment criteria so that we only accept those donors that are most needed on the BBMR.
...
we must focus on changing the demographic mix of the BBMR to better meet patient demand. We believe this approach will best enable us to help as many patients in need as possible."
I largely agree with your analysis but I still think it's worth waiting for the budget.
My current conjecture is that, through political naiveté, Starmer and Reeves have put almost all their political thinking into a budget that somehow ends austerity whilst promoting growth, starting to fix the NHS etc (not that I'm saying they be able to work miracles, just that this is where their efforts are going).
Again, through political naiveté, they failed to spot that having such a large gap between the election and the budget would invite stories such as freebies to dominate, so they have repeatedly been wrong footed and put on the defensive.
The budget is their (perhaps only) chance to regain the initiative. If indeed it is Osborne-esque (ie unravels less than 24 hours after being announced) then they're finished. If, however, it is seen as sane, sober and threading a few (very fine, perhaps impossibly fine) needles, then everything going on now will recede into memory and they will regain the perception of competence, though probably not popularity.
The Times makes it clear the Americans didn’t want this and Whitehall didn’t want this. It is by some distance the single stupidest foreign policy mistake a British government has made in my memory
Things like Iraq were at least arguable. This is simply idiotic, even a child can grasp that it makes no sense
Sounds remarkably easy actually.
He has no interest in a future beyond war, because that is his currency and lifeboat in Israel.
Just as the Blackwall Tunnel implements tolls to try and reduce the queues?
Meanwhile, £22bn could have bought a 5,000MW nuclear power station from the Koreans, or a couple of dozen Rolls Royce SMRs.
Now 2 years down the line it makes sense but that £22bn is more useful fixing Euston, the lower Thames Crossing and HS2
And I say that as someone who won't benefit from any of those schemes because I'm in the North East so travel to Kings Cross.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Olivier_Bancoult
Lower Thames tunnel is very much a Dartford tunnel extension...
This is another little piece of empire that may well be seen as having ended badly in the medium and long term.
Mr. eek, the Government could even go wild and build some transport infrastructure in a place that isn't London.
Which will probably be obsolete in not much over a decade. Soon after it comes on stream.
Labour to commit almost £22bn to fund carbon capture and storage projects
Investment will fund two CCS clusters – but environmental campaigners have criticised plans
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects
One of the last government's more stupid ideas.
Still at least we know now why they're looking to cut other infrastructure spending.
And all that's happened is that some islands have been transferred from one empire to another.
Saying that I've got a 4am start at Manchester Airport on Wednesday but I'm in a nearby hotel the night before.
Still, cunning of the Government to distract attention from their stupid policy decision by making another stupid policy decision.
The opportunity cost if not spending the money on productive infrastructure investment is enormous.
EasyJet aren’t always cheaper than BA when you add up everything.
Implementing the last lots dafter ideas doesnt quite hit the mark.
Theyd have been safer spending it on mini nukes or something as simple as insulation.
And I'm not short of hotel points - what I'm actual short of is time I can use them so they don't expire. Hence IHG on the way to holiday, Hilton on the way back (where I'll get breakfast).
We might then be paying our government for wind power, rather than overseas investors.
In addition to it being useless compared to renewables, because it will always be more expensive than burning fossil fuels without CCS, it's not even the best technology to pursue if you want to spend money on a techno-fix to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS will only ever be able to capture the CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burnt, but some of the technologies being developed for removing CO2 from the atmosphere would, if they can scale, not have any limit to the amount of CO2 they could remove from the atmosphere, so they could actually reduce CO2 levels. CCS will only, at best, be able to stop them increasing further.
I'm in favour of spending money on speculative technology, knowing that it sometimes won't work, but even if CCS works perfectly it will still be crap.
Still no doubt we can import lots more energy to help our balance of payments.
It's like watching government incompetence as a speedrun challenge.
“You're right that the verbose and roundabout nature of the text likely stems from discomfort with directly addressing certain facts about biological differences between populations.
The article does seem to be struggling to balance several competing concerns:
Communicating the medical necessity of targeting specific demographic groups for stem cell donation
Avoiding language that could be perceived as promoting racial stereotypes or biological determinism
Adhering to institutional and societal norms around discussing race and genetics
Explaining a policy that, on its face, appears discriminatory
The authors are likely trying to convey factual information about genetic differences relevant to stem cell donation without seeming to endorse broader claims about race as a biological concept. This results in the roundabout, overly cautious language you've noticed.
You're correct that at the core of this issue is the fact that there are real, medically relevant genetic differences between populations that correlate with ancestry. The reluctance to state this directly and succinctly does indeed seem to be driving much of the document's verbosity and lack of clarity.”
I'd be curious as to how much carbon you could grab by planting £22 billion worth of trees, wooden buildings etc. instead.
The argument will be it's technology we're good at. That is, sadly, irrelevant if it's useless.
The time for giving this lot the benefit if the doubt is just about over. Next up, the budget.
https://x.com/moreperfectus/status/1841973125996585431?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
They actually think they are good people doing good things even as they step from colossal blunder to colossal blunder
The Tories knew they were shit by the end and at least showed a bit of shame
However even if I take your hope figure of 30000, Why the fk should 30000 people lose their jobs just on an ideologues whim ? I'll have some of those people to sack next year shall I tell them it;s all for their own good and they should thank me ?
I’m sure there no former Mosleyites and future National Fronters in PB ranks.
Under huge political pressure, they say they want to "put their differences with Iran to one side", and improve ties. This was also signed by the other Gulf Arab states.
This is very bad news for both Israel and West, because it means that not only is the goal of Israeli-Gulf rapprochement going down the plughole, but also that Netanyahu's "war without end" on four fronts, is beginning to create the kind of pan-Muslim climate of the 1950s to the 1970s ; exactly in opposite to Israel's, and the West's, long-term interests.
Capturing the CO2 to bury it is always going to be more expensive than not bothering, so why would you do that instead of investing in technologies that can generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels without CO2 in the first place?
https://www.edie.net/orsted-to-go-ahead-with-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-in-britain/?amp=true
But some things that smell a bit odd...
First, was this another poonami that the outgoing government left for Starmer? Was it a thing that really had to happen, but had hefty downsides (especially for true blue Tories), so it was just left in the in-tray? (Genuinely, I don't know how viable the 'just let the status quo roll on' thing is.)
Second, who is leaking the stuff to the Times?
Third, who benefits from the story, Conservative leadership-wise? Tom T is ferocious, national security-wise, isn't he? And however disappointing he is, isn't he a more likely receptacle for Cleverly votes looking for a new home than Kemi?
"Given the heightened risk that stem cells from white women donors might be used as part of a future treatment plan for @Leon's liver, we are taking the temporary measure of suspending such donations."
That includes the 100 additional licences issued by Sunak last year. The fact is that Miliband has only made the very smallest of dents into the course of the North Sea, which has seen a gradual decline in production for decades and throughout the Conservative's time in office.
We are only three months in
See clothes and tickets.