I've heard other portraits are due to come down too...
Horatio Nelson: he’s been put up on a pedestal – literally – for fighting colonial wars. The guy is practically the poster boy for imperialism. Yes, he won at Trafalgar, but at what cost? Dominating other nations under the guise of "national pride"? He’s the embodiment of old-school, white-male-dominated militarism, and was outspoken in his support for the slave trade, which, let’s be real, has no place in the more compassionate, decolonised Britain we’re building today. Also, why all the statues? Can’t we just treat him with a quick TikTok putdown instead? Beast.
Florence Nightingale: yes, the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ – but how many lamps did she carry for colonialism? Nightingale’s work in the Crimea was part of a military-industrial complex that propped up British imperialism, and we can't overlook the structural racism of her era. Also, let’s not ignore that her "heroic" image overshadows other nurses, especially those from the Global South, who were left out of the narrative. This isn’t about erasing history – it's about correcting the glaring gaps in it.
Isaac Newton: ah, the “genius” who discovered gravity – like it wasn’t there all along. But have we considered the class implications of a man who spent his entire life sitting under trees and developing theories in a Cambridge college? It reeks of privilege. How many working-class people had the luxury of pondering the universe while picking apples? And that’s before we even get into his work for the Royal Mint, helping to prop up the economic system that kept wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Charles Darwin: Darwin? He’s often held up as a scientific hero, but let’s talk about the social Darwinism his theories inspired. The very idea that some species, or worse, some people, are "naturally" superior to others? That’s been used to justify colonialism, capitalism, and eugenics. Plus, why was he exploring far-off islands anyway? Can’t we celebrate local biodiversity? Surely we’ve got enough pigeons and badgers to study here without disrupting vulnerable ecosystems abroad.
The Duke of Wellington: Beat Napoleon, did he? But wasn’t he just another aristocrat fighting wars to maintain the class status quo? Wellington fought for an outdated, hierarchical system that kept the rich rich and the poor poor. Sure, he might have kept Britain free from French dominance, but he wasn’t exactly advocating for universal suffrage, was he? The Battle of Waterloo? Honestly, it's just glorified warmongering. In a modern context, he’d probably be defending the House of Lords or complaining about wind farms ruining his estate views. Good job we're kicking his descendants out. About bloody time.
Florence Nightingale was famously also a statistician who invented the Nightingale Rose, a rather good graph design which nobody uses (imagine a bar chart rotating around a point)
Isacc Newton once poked a knitting needle into his eye socket to study it.
Darwin is my favorite example of the middle-class dilettante who can't settle down, hasn't got the balls or faith to become a farmer, soildier or priest but is instead paid by his helicopter parents to go round the world on an extended gap year. See also "Einstein fathered a child by his babymamma and was only good enoiugh to work in the post office"
I just wish Robert Hooke was better known and acknowledged. A true genius, who deserved recognition for Micrographia alone, leaving aside all his other accomplishments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrographia
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
Look at the swing in BC in Canada from the left to the right, if people feel unsafe they will vote accordingly and the left absolutely destroyed BC with terrible drug and theft decriminalisation. The CPC were literally wiped out last time and now they almost won a majority.
The Tories will have a lot to learn from this elections and the next Canadian election. Even Trump winning on the basis of prosecuting criminals and drug dealers will appeal to a lot of ordinary people who are sick of seeing nothing done about crime.
The issue the Dems have is even if Harris and Walz were signed up to pushing for recriminalisation of drugs and theft there are too many local democrat politicians and Congress people who will oppose that policy which dilutes it's effectiveness in the eyes of the voters they need.
More than anything else I think too many people are just fed up of low level crime. Even staunch lefties struggle to defend it now, usually you just get a barrage of arrest statistics showing that arrests are down as if that's supposed to show that crime is down rather than the police just giving up.
I've heard other portraits are due to come down too...
Horatio Nelson: he’s been put up on a pedestal – literally – for fighting colonial wars. The guy is practically the poster boy for imperialism. Yes, he won at Trafalgar, but at what cost? Dominating other nations under the guise of "national pride"? He’s the embodiment of old-school, white-male-dominated militarism, and was outspoken in his support for the slave trade, which, let’s be real, has no place in the more compassionate, decolonised Britain we’re building today. Also, why all the statues? Can’t we just treat him with a quick TikTok putdown instead? Beast.
Florence Nightingale: yes, the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ – but how many lamps did she carry for colonialism? Nightingale’s work in the Crimea was part of a military-industrial complex that propped up British imperialism, and we can't overlook the structural racism of her era. Also, let’s not ignore that her "heroic" image overshadows other nurses, especially those from the Global South, who were left out of the narrative. This isn’t about erasing history – it's about correcting the glaring gaps in it.
Isaac Newton: ah, the “genius” who discovered gravity – like it wasn’t there all along. But have we considered the class implications of a man who spent his entire life sitting under trees and developing theories in a Cambridge college? It reeks of privilege. How many working-class people had the luxury of pondering the universe while picking apples? And that’s before we even get into his work for the Royal Mint, helping to prop up the economic system that kept wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Charles Darwin: Darwin? He’s often held up as a scientific hero, but let’s talk about the social Darwinism his theories inspired. The very idea that some species, or worse, some people, are "naturally" superior to others? That’s been used to justify colonialism, capitalism, and eugenics. Plus, why was he exploring far-off islands anyway? Can’t we celebrate local biodiversity? Surely we’ve got enough pigeons and badgers to study here without disrupting vulnerable ecosystems abroad.
The Duke of Wellington: Beat Napoleon, did he? But wasn’t he just another aristocrat fighting wars to maintain the class status quo? Wellington fought for an outdated, hierarchical system that kept the rich rich and the poor poor. Sure, he might have kept Britain free from French dominance, but he wasn’t exactly advocating for universal suffrage, was he? The Battle of Waterloo? Honestly, it's just glorified warmongering. In a modern context, he’d probably be defending the House of Lords or complaining about wind farms ruining his estate views. Good job we're kicking his descendants out. About bloody time.
Florence Nightingale was famously also a statistician who invented the Nightingale Rose, a rather good graph design which nobody uses (imagine a bar chart rotating around a point)
Isacc Newton once poked a knitting needle into his eye socket to study it.
Darwin is my favorite example of the middle-class dilettante who can't settle down, hasn't got the balls or faith to become a farmer, soildier or priest but is instead paid by his helicopter parents to go round the world on an extended gap year. See also "Einstein fathered a child by his babymamma and was only good enoiugh to work in the post office"
I just wish Robert Hooke was better known and acknowledged. A true genius, who deserved recognition for Micrographia alone, leaving aside all his other accomplishments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrographia
I recently visited Florence. Couldn't get in the place with that statue so I went to the Galileo museum instead, which was much better. Plenty on Hooke in there.
I've heard other portraits are due to come down too...
Horatio Nelson: he’s been put up on a pedestal – literally – for fighting colonial wars. The guy is practically the poster boy for imperialism. Yes, he won at Trafalgar, but at what cost? Dominating other nations under the guise of "national pride"? He’s the embodiment of old-school, white-male-dominated militarism, and was outspoken in his support for the slave trade, which, let’s be real, has no place in the more compassionate, decolonised Britain we’re building today. Also, why all the statues? Can’t we just treat him with a quick TikTok putdown instead? Beast.
Florence Nightingale: yes, the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ – but how many lamps did she carry for colonialism? Nightingale’s work in the Crimea was part of a military-industrial complex that propped up British imperialism, and we can't overlook the structural racism of her era. Also, let’s not ignore that her "heroic" image overshadows other nurses, especially those from the Global South, who were left out of the narrative. This isn’t about erasing history – it's about correcting the glaring gaps in it.
Isaac Newton: ah, the “genius” who discovered gravity – like it wasn’t there all along. But have we considered the class implications of a man who spent his entire life sitting under trees and developing theories in a Cambridge college? It reeks of privilege. How many working-class people had the luxury of pondering the universe while picking apples? And that’s before we even get into his work for the Royal Mint, helping to prop up the economic system that kept wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Charles Darwin: Darwin? He’s often held up as a scientific hero, but let’s talk about the social Darwinism his theories inspired. The very idea that some species, or worse, some people, are "naturally" superior to others? That’s been used to justify colonialism, capitalism, and eugenics. Plus, why was he exploring far-off islands anyway? Can’t we celebrate local biodiversity? Surely we’ve got enough pigeons and badgers to study here without disrupting vulnerable ecosystems abroad.
The Duke of Wellington: Beat Napoleon, did he? But wasn’t he just another aristocrat fighting wars to maintain the class status quo? Wellington fought for an outdated, hierarchical system that kept the rich rich and the poor poor. Sure, he might have kept Britain free from French dominance, but he wasn’t exactly advocating for universal suffrage, was he? The Battle of Waterloo? Honestly, it's just glorified warmongering. In a modern context, he’d probably be defending the House of Lords or complaining about wind farms ruining his estate views. Good job we're kicking his descendants out. About bloody time.
"Guess I was wrong about you. You're not such an asshole after all!"
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
I've heard other portraits are due to come down too...
Horatio Nelson: he’s been put up on a pedestal – literally – for fighting colonial wars. The guy is practically the poster boy for imperialism. Yes, he won at Trafalgar, but at what cost? Dominating other nations under the guise of "national pride"? He’s the embodiment of old-school, white-male-dominated militarism, and was outspoken in his support for the slave trade, which, let’s be real, has no place in the more compassionate, decolonised Britain we’re building today. Also, why all the statues? Can’t we just treat him with a quick TikTok putdown instead? Beast.
Florence Nightingale: yes, the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ – but how many lamps did she carry for colonialism? Nightingale’s work in the Crimea was part of a military-industrial complex that propped up British imperialism, and we can't overlook the structural racism of her era. Also, let’s not ignore that her "heroic" image overshadows other nurses, especially those from the Global South, who were left out of the narrative. This isn’t about erasing history – it's about correcting the glaring gaps in it.
Isaac Newton: ah, the “genius” who discovered gravity – like it wasn’t there all along. But have we considered the class implications of a man who spent his entire life sitting under trees and developing theories in a Cambridge college? It reeks of privilege. How many working-class people had the luxury of pondering the universe while picking apples? And that’s before we even get into his work for the Royal Mint, helping to prop up the economic system that kept wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Charles Darwin: Darwin? He’s often held up as a scientific hero, but let’s talk about the social Darwinism his theories inspired. The very idea that some species, or worse, some people, are "naturally" superior to others? That’s been used to justify colonialism, capitalism, and eugenics. Plus, why was he exploring far-off islands anyway? Can’t we celebrate local biodiversity? Surely we’ve got enough pigeons and badgers to study here without disrupting vulnerable ecosystems abroad.
The Duke of Wellington: Beat Napoleon, did he? But wasn’t he just another aristocrat fighting wars to maintain the class status quo? Wellington fought for an outdated, hierarchical system that kept the rich rich and the poor poor. Sure, he might have kept Britain free from French dominance, but he wasn’t exactly advocating for universal suffrage, was he? The Battle of Waterloo? Honestly, it's just glorified warmongering. In a modern context, he’d probably be defending the House of Lords or complaining about wind farms ruining his estate views. Good job we're kicking his descendants out. About bloody time.
"Guess I was wrong about you. You're not such an asshole after all!"
I was just admiring the Portuguese railway system. Gauge 5 foot 5 inches. If you've never been, you would love them.
I've heard other portraits are due to come down too...
Horatio Nelson: he’s been put up on a pedestal – literally – for fighting colonial wars. The guy is practically the poster boy for imperialism. Yes, he won at Trafalgar, but at what cost? Dominating other nations under the guise of "national pride"? He’s the embodiment of old-school, white-male-dominated militarism, and was outspoken in his support for the slave trade, which, let’s be real, has no place in the more compassionate, decolonised Britain we’re building today. Also, why all the statues? Can’t we just treat him with a quick TikTok putdown instead? Beast.
Florence Nightingale: yes, the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ – but how many lamps did she carry for colonialism? Nightingale’s work in the Crimea was part of a military-industrial complex that propped up British imperialism, and we can't overlook the structural racism of her era. Also, let’s not ignore that her "heroic" image overshadows other nurses, especially those from the Global South, who were left out of the narrative. This isn’t about erasing history – it's about correcting the glaring gaps in it.
Isaac Newton: ah, the “genius” who discovered gravity – like it wasn’t there all along. But have we considered the class implications of a man who spent his entire life sitting under trees and developing theories in a Cambridge college? It reeks of privilege. How many working-class people had the luxury of pondering the universe while picking apples? And that’s before we even get into his work for the Royal Mint, helping to prop up the economic system that kept wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Charles Darwin: Darwin? He’s often held up as a scientific hero, but let’s talk about the social Darwinism his theories inspired. The very idea that some species, or worse, some people, are "naturally" superior to others? That’s been used to justify colonialism, capitalism, and eugenics. Plus, why was he exploring far-off islands anyway? Can’t we celebrate local biodiversity? Surely we’ve got enough pigeons and badgers to study here without disrupting vulnerable ecosystems abroad.
The Duke of Wellington: Beat Napoleon, did he? But wasn’t he just another aristocrat fighting wars to maintain the class status quo? Wellington fought for an outdated, hierarchical system that kept the rich rich and the poor poor. Sure, he might have kept Britain free from French dominance, but he wasn’t exactly advocating for universal suffrage, was he? The Battle of Waterloo? Honestly, it's just glorified warmongering. In a modern context, he’d probably be defending the House of Lords or complaining about wind farms ruining his estate views. Good job we're kicking his descendants out. About bloody time.
Florence Nightingale was famously also a statistician who invented the Nightingale Rose, a rather good graph design which nobody uses (imagine a bar chart rotating around a point)
Isacc Newton once poked a knitting needle into his eye socket to study it.
Darwin is my favorite example of the middle-class dilettante who can't settle down, hasn't got the balls or faith to become a farmer, soildier or priest but is instead paid by his helicopter parents to go round the world on an extended gap year. See also "Einstein fathered a child by his babymamma and was only good enoiugh to work in the post office"
I just wish Robert Hooke was better known and acknowledged. A true genius, who deserved recognition for Micrographia alone, leaving aside all his other accomplishments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrographia
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
Sorry to hear that, must be terrible for your aunt.
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
Look at the swing in BC in Canada from the left to the right, if people feel unsafe they will vote accordingly and the left absolutely destroyed BC with terrible drug and theft decriminalisation. The CPC were literally wiped out last time and now they almost won a majority.
The Tories will have a lot to learn from this elections and the next Canadian election. Even Trump winning on the basis of prosecuting criminals and drug dealers will appeal to a lot of ordinary people who are sick of seeing nothing done about crime.
The issue the Dems have is even if Harris and Walz were signed up to pushing for recriminalisation of drugs and theft there are too many local democrat politicians and Congress people who will oppose that policy which dilutes it's effectiveness in the eyes of the voters they need.
More than anything else I think too many people are just fed up of low level crime. Even staunch lefties struggle to defend it now, usually you just get a barrage of arrest statistics showing that arrests are down as if that's supposed to show that crime is down rather than the police just giving up.
Trump has the Big Mo, sadly.
I can’t fathom the stupidity of those Democrats who favour sanctuary cities and high crime.
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
Look at the swing in BC in Canada from the left to the right, if people feel unsafe they will vote accordingly and the left absolutely destroyed BC with terrible drug and theft decriminalisation. The CPC were literally wiped out last time and now they almost won a majority.
The Tories will have a lot to learn from this elections and the next Canadian election. Even Trump winning on the basis of prosecuting criminals and drug dealers will appeal to a lot of ordinary people who are sick of seeing nothing done about crime.
The issue the Dems have is even if Harris and Walz were signed up to pushing for recriminalisation of drugs and theft there are too many local democrat politicians and Congress people who will oppose that policy which dilutes it's effectiveness in the eyes of the voters they need.
More than anything else I think too many people are just fed up of low level crime. Even staunch lefties struggle to defend it now, usually you just get a barrage of arrest statistics showing that arrests are down as if that's supposed to show that crime is down rather than the police just giving up.
Trump has the Big Mo, sadly.
I can’t fathom the stupidity of those Democrats who favour sanctuary cities and high crime.
It's a reaction to system of the police beating the shit out of minorities and shooting homeless people for no reason.
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
That is no age. And must have been a horrible shock too.
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
???
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
Watched the first episode of Ludwig last night, starring David Mitchell. Pretty good. 8/10.
I binge-watched it a week or so ago. It was a bit formulaic, especially at the start, but it did liven up. As ever with the BBC, the 'series' was far too short. We need 13 episodes, not 6.
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
???
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
What has he done to trigger this latest round of pearl-clutching? Is it something to do with paintings again?
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
???
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
What has he done to trigger this latest round of pearl-clutching? Is it something to do with paintings again?
Nah. Starmer's just a prat and its clear for all to see
I don't think it's a good idea to put everything online. I'd be happier if my medical records stayed on a paper record in a filing cabinet in the local GP surgery.
All your personal information is already online.
Or not. When my father was in hospital, recently, they tried hiding the bloodwork - it wasn’t entered into the system. Then the family couldn’t see it - patient confidentiality. Despite the patient actually asking for the data….
When they finally gave it to us - even I could see issues. Classic dehydration, for a start.
Well I nearly came a cropper with the paperwork being both online and on paper. I reported it here at the time. It was this year that I had a really minor op (local anaesthetic, takes 5 min) for trigger finger. So they wheeled in the computer and paper file and confirmed my name and date of birth. All confirmed ok. Then mentioned I was allergic to penicillin to which I said no. They then said according to the notes I had a severe reaction when I had pancreatitis to which I said I have never had that. At which point I got up to look at the notes. The computer records were me, but the notes were for someone else with the same name, but a completely different date of birth. They had confirm stuff on the computer and then referred to the paper notes.
I joked about the fact that it was a good job I was going to be awake as I didn't want to lose a leg. My name and date of birth were confirmed endlessly after that as per normal, but we managed to pass that test previously by using two sets of records that weren't the same.
Which is precisely why we do the checks on identity so repetitively, recognising that errors will creep in, and computer systems are just as prone to these.
Not totally convinced. No matter how many times they did the check it will agree with the computer system because it was correct, but if I hadn't picked up on the incorrect allergy (and that only happened by chance; if the other kjh had not been allergic to penicillin it would not have been picked up) then the wrong paperwork would have accompanied me. If the paperwork was never accessed it would not matter, but it was and might have been later to my detriment. Only if they checked the DOB on both systems each time would it have been picked up. Do they do that? They obviously didn't the first time.
So repeatedly asking the name and DOB won't work if you have two differing systems and one is wrong and you don't check them both, which they didn't do the first time.
It was obviously worrying to have the notes of a complete stranger mixed up with mine.
My wife, who like you, is a Doctor was quite surprised it happened.
When I was in for 3 weeks last year in Haematology the checks were very thorough. But as a Type I D the first lesson I learnt back in 2001 was to be an empowered patient (both words are important) and treat my clinicians as a team advising me what to do and cooperating with me managing my condition, not the other way round.
The strongest ID checks I had last year were around blood transfusions, where there was a team of two nurses required to be present at each transfusion to cross-check each other. That is because getting it wrong can be *serious*.
I can't remember what my blood group is, but iirc they said it's the one that lets me accept blood from anyone else, but not give it to anyone else. I think - I may misremember. That makes me like Japan's export policy in the 1970s/80s .
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
Watched the first episode of Ludwig last night, starring David Mitchell. Pretty good. 8/10.
I binge-watched it a week or so ago. It was a bit formulaic, especially at the start, but it did liven up. As ever with the BBC, the 'series' was far too short. We need 13 episodes, not 6.
Loved it at Chez Tubbs. However, as with all such series, implausible beyond belief. And all the cases closed thrown out in court if anything gets out…
I've heard other portraits are due to come down too...
Horatio Nelson: he’s been put up on a pedestal – literally – for fighting colonial wars. The guy is practically the poster boy for imperialism. Yes, he won at Trafalgar, but at what cost? Dominating other nations under the guise of "national pride"? He’s the embodiment of old-school, white-male-dominated militarism, and was outspoken in his support for the slave trade, which, let’s be real, has no place in the more compassionate, decolonised Britain we’re building today. Also, why all the statues? Can’t we just treat him with a quick TikTok putdown instead? Beast.
Florence Nightingale: yes, the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ – but how many lamps did she carry for colonialism? Nightingale’s work in the Crimea was part of a military-industrial complex that propped up British imperialism, and we can't overlook the structural racism of her era. Also, let’s not ignore that her "heroic" image overshadows other nurses, especially those from the Global South, who were left out of the narrative. This isn’t about erasing history – it's about correcting the glaring gaps in it.
Isaac Newton: ah, the “genius” who discovered gravity – like it wasn’t there all along. But have we considered the class implications of a man who spent his entire life sitting under trees and developing theories in a Cambridge college? It reeks of privilege. How many working-class people had the luxury of pondering the universe while picking apples? And that’s before we even get into his work for the Royal Mint, helping to prop up the economic system that kept wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Charles Darwin: Darwin? He’s often held up as a scientific hero, but let’s talk about the social Darwinism his theories inspired. The very idea that some species, or worse, some people, are "naturally" superior to others? That’s been used to justify colonialism, capitalism, and eugenics. Plus, why was he exploring far-off islands anyway? Can’t we celebrate local biodiversity? Surely we’ve got enough pigeons and badgers to study here without disrupting vulnerable ecosystems abroad.
The Duke of Wellington: Beat Napoleon, did he? But wasn’t he just another aristocrat fighting wars to maintain the class status quo? Wellington fought for an outdated, hierarchical system that kept the rich rich and the poor poor. Sure, he might have kept Britain free from French dominance, but he wasn’t exactly advocating for universal suffrage, was he? The Battle of Waterloo? Honestly, it's just glorified warmongering. In a modern context, he’d probably be defending the House of Lords or complaining about wind farms ruining his estate views. Good job we're kicking his descendants out. About bloody time.
"Guess I was wrong about you. You're not such an asshole after all!"
I was just admiring the Portuguese railway system. Gauge 5 foot 5 inches. If you've never been, you would love them.
Iberian Gauge (1,668 mm), also in use in Spain (though standard gauge is on the rise).
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
Look at the swing in BC in Canada from the left to the right, if people feel unsafe they will vote accordingly and the left absolutely destroyed BC with terrible drug and theft decriminalisation. The CPC were literally wiped out last time and now they almost won a majority.
The Tories will have a lot to learn from this elections and the next Canadian election. Even Trump winning on the basis of prosecuting criminals and drug dealers will appeal to a lot of ordinary people who are sick of seeing nothing done about crime.
The issue the Dems have is even if Harris and Walz were signed up to pushing for recriminalisation of drugs and theft there are too many local democrat politicians and Congress people who will oppose that policy which dilutes it's effectiveness in the eyes of the voters they need.
More than anything else I think too many people are just fed up of low level crime. Even staunch lefties struggle to defend it now, usually you just get a barrage of arrest statistics showing that arrests are down as if that's supposed to show that crime is down rather than the police just giving up.
While drug decriminalization was/is an issue in British Columbia, reckon you are OVERESTIMATING its impact on BC voters in general, and on yesterday's BC general election results in particular. Plenty of other issues, mostly economic AND environmental and NOT all cutting the Conservative's way.
Note that NDP was elected in BC in 2017 following two decades of rule by BC Liberal Party, which was actually conservative, and continuation of creation of anti-NDP center-right coalition.
Re: statement that the Conservative in BC, "were literally wiped out last time and now they almost won a majority" fact is that in 2020 provincial election, it was the BC Liberals who were the opposition to the NDP from the right, leaving zero room for then-moribund BC Conservatives. Since then, the Libs kept falling in the polls, due to lackluster performance & leadership, but also to having "Liberal" in their name thus linking them to unpopular Trudeau federal Libs.
BC Conservatives essentially stole their wash from the line; former BC Lib backers stopped backing them and went for what was essentiall rebranding as new & improved Conservative Party of BC.
Which is actually a tradition in BC politics! Starting shortly after WWII
> Worn-out Lib-Con coaltion was replaced by BC Social Credit Party, and managed to keep NDP out of power (the goal of the "free enterprise" voters)
> After four decades in power (interrupted by just 4 years under NDP govt) the Socreds disentergrated due to scandals high & low, and were quickly superceded by formerly-moribund BC Liberals, who rebranded the anti-NDP side of politics.
> BC Liberals ruled the roost - at one opposition NDP had only ONE seat in the Legislature - but then the tides of time plus . . . wait for it . . . more scandal ended up defeating the Libs, to benefit of NDP, though it was being rivaled to the left by the rise of the Greens.
> In 2017 election, the BC Libs tied the NDP but were out of govt, because two Green MLAs backed minority NDP govt, which increased it vote and won a strong majority in 2020, thanks to COVID bump AND lackluster Libs leadership)
> THAT set the stage for the (apparently) final demise of BC Libs in August 2024, and rebranding as new (!) & improved (?) Conservative Party of British Columbia
Musk to give away $1m per day to Pennsylvania voters
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has said he will give away $1m (£766,000) a day to a registered voter in the key swing state of Pennsylvania until the US presidential election in November.
The winner will be chosen at random from those who sign a pro-constitution petition by Mr Musk’s campaign group AmericaPAC which he set up to support Republican nominee Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House.
The South Sandwich Islands, in the South Atlantic, are clearly owned by Hawaii in the Pacific
The South Sandwich Islands were originally called the Sandwich Islands
Then we discovered what is now called Hawaii, and called it the Sandwich Islands
We then subordinated the old Sandwich Islands as a subsidiary to the new ones by calling them South Sandwich
It's as clear logic as that for the Chagos Islands belonging to Mauritius
FAKE NEWS!
Because according to quasi-reliable source (wiki) Captain Cook named the South Atlantic islands "Sandwichland" (which sounds like a great name for a sandwich shop!)
As for "we discovered Hawaii" don't you think the Hawai'ians deserve SOME credit? Seeing as how their forebears got their way before Cook & etc., etc.?
The "subordination" bit is of course your little joke! Though note that an intrepid (and idiotic) officer of the Royal Navy DID seize the Hawaiian Island, overthrew the rule of the King of Hawai'i and his govt, and attempted to annex the islands - acts repudiated by UK govt as soon as they learned about them.
Making UK at least morally superior in this respect to US a half-century later.
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
The South Sandwich Islands, in the South Atlantic, are clearly owned by Hawaii in the Pacific
The South Sandwich Islands were originally called the Sandwich Islands
Then we discovered what is now called Hawaii, and called it the Sandwich Islands
We then subordinated the old Sandwich Islands as a subsidiary to the new ones by calling them South Sandwich
It's as clear logic as that for the Chagos Islands belonging to Mauritius
FAKE NEWS!
Because according to quasi-reliable source (wiki) Captain Cook named the South Atlantic islands "Sandwichland" (which sounds like a great name for a sandwich shop!)
Musk to give away $1m per day to Pennsylvania voters
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has said he will give away $1m (£766,000) a day to a registered voter in the key swing state of Pennsylvania until the US presidential election in November.
The winner will be chosen at random from those who sign a pro-constitution petition by Mr Musk’s campaign group AmericaPAC which he set up to support Republican nominee Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House.
Whole thing sounds like more Trump-Musko BS to me.
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
Musk to give away $1m per day to Pennsylvania voters
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has said he will give away $1m (£766,000) a day to a registered voter in the key swing state of Pennsylvania until the US presidential election in November.
The winner will be chosen at random from those who sign a pro-constitution petition by Mr Musk’s campaign group AmericaPAC which he set up to support Republican nominee Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House.
An illegal immigrant who gained US citizenship is manipulating the election in order to control the presidency shock.
I've heard other portraits are due to come down too...
Horatio Nelson: he’s been put up on a pedestal – literally – for fighting colonial wars. The guy is practically the poster boy for imperialism. Yes, he won at Trafalgar, but at what cost? Dominating other nations under the guise of "national pride"? He’s the embodiment of old-school, white-male-dominated militarism, and was outspoken in his support for the slave trade, which, let’s be real, has no place in the more compassionate, decolonised Britain we’re building today. Also, why all the statues? Can’t we just treat him with a quick TikTok putdown instead? Beast.
Florence Nightingale: yes, the ‘Lady with the Lamp’ – but how many lamps did she carry for colonialism? Nightingale’s work in the Crimea was part of a military-industrial complex that propped up British imperialism, and we can't overlook the structural racism of her era. Also, let’s not ignore that her "heroic" image overshadows other nurses, especially those from the Global South, who were left out of the narrative. This isn’t about erasing history – it's about correcting the glaring gaps in it.
Isaac Newton: ah, the “genius” who discovered gravity – like it wasn’t there all along. But have we considered the class implications of a man who spent his entire life sitting under trees and developing theories in a Cambridge college? It reeks of privilege. How many working-class people had the luxury of pondering the universe while picking apples? And that’s before we even get into his work for the Royal Mint, helping to prop up the economic system that kept wealth concentrated in the hands of the elite.
Charles Darwin: Darwin? He’s often held up as a scientific hero, but let’s talk about the social Darwinism his theories inspired. The very idea that some species, or worse, some people, are "naturally" superior to others? That’s been used to justify colonialism, capitalism, and eugenics. Plus, why was he exploring far-off islands anyway? Can’t we celebrate local biodiversity? Surely we’ve got enough pigeons and badgers to study here without disrupting vulnerable ecosystems abroad.
The Duke of Wellington: Beat Napoleon, did he? But wasn’t he just another aristocrat fighting wars to maintain the class status quo? Wellington fought for an outdated, hierarchical system that kept the rich rich and the poor poor. Sure, he might have kept Britain free from French dominance, but he wasn’t exactly advocating for universal suffrage, was he? The Battle of Waterloo? Honestly, it's just glorified warmongering. In a modern context, he’d probably be defending the House of Lords or complaining about wind farms ruining his estate views. Good job we're kicking his descendants out. About bloody time.
Florence Nightingale was famously also a statistician who invented the Nightingale Rose, a rather good graph design which nobody uses (imagine a bar chart rotating around a point)
Isacc Newton once poked a knitting needle into his eye socket to study it.
Darwin is my favorite example of the middle-class dilettante who can't settle down, hasn't got the balls or faith to become a farmer, soildier or priest but is instead paid by his helicopter parents to go round the world on an extended gap year. See also "Einstein fathered a child by his babymamma and was only good enoiugh to work in the post office"
That's brought to mind this Florence Nightingale sketch from 'Big Train' :
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
???
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
What has he done to trigger this latest round of pearl-clutching? Is it something to do with paintings again?
Nah. Starmer's just a prat and its clear for all to see
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The South Sandwich Islands, in the South Atlantic, are clearly owned by Hawaii in the Pacific
The South Sandwich Islands were originally called the Sandwich Islands
Then we discovered what is now called Hawaii, and called it the Sandwich Islands
We then subordinated the old Sandwich Islands as a subsidiary to the new ones by calling them South Sandwich
It's as clear logic as that for the Chagos Islands belonging to Mauritius
FAKE NEWS!
Because according to quasi-reliable source (wiki) Captain Cook named the South Atlantic islands "Sandwichland" (which sounds like a great name for a sandwich shop!)
As for "we discovered Hawaii" don't you think the Hawai'ians deserve SOME credit? Seeing as how their forebears got their way before Cook & etc., etc.?
The "subordination" bit is of course your little joke! Though note that an intrepid (and idiotic) officer of the Royal Navy DID seize the Hawaiian Island, overthrew the rule of the King of Hawai'i and his govt, and attempted to annex the islands - acts repudiated by UK govt as soon as they learned about them.
Making UK at least morally superior in this respect to US a half-century later.
There are, apparently, some memos from the Foreign and Colonial Office, where the mandarins, on being informed that some mad adventurer had extended the British Empire, essentially expressed it thus "FFS, who let them do this shit? Aargh, now we have to take responsibility. Fuck, Fuck, Fuck....."
Musk to give away $1m per day to Pennsylvania voters
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has said he will give away $1m (£766,000) a day to a registered voter in the key swing state of Pennsylvania until the US presidential election in November.
The winner will be chosen at random from those who sign a pro-constitution petition by Mr Musk’s campaign group AmericaPAC which he set up to support Republican nominee Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House.
An illegal immigrant who gained US citizenship is manipulating the election in order to control the presidency shock.
As Musk said...with no apparent sense of irony.
Remember, Musk is an engineering genius, which almost certainly means that he doesn't understand irony.
What sort of madness in international affairs affords the Palestinians eternal refugee status right up until the point that they've wiped Israel off the map?
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago.
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago.
{The NAACP has entered the conversation}
I see the rather loopy Graham Hancock is back on Netflix for a second season of his hypothesis of the lost advanced civilianisation. If nothing else it was a beautifully shot show of some ancient sites.
Putting aside some dodgy evidence for some of his claims, the main criticism of the first season was he was actually some sort of massive racist / white supremacist because he takes the folktales from indigenous people literally and used incorrect non-pc terminology...or something like that (and if I remember correctly, the "massive racist", is married to a non-white lady).
The South Sandwich Islands, in the South Atlantic, are clearly owned by Hawaii in the Pacific
The South Sandwich Islands were originally called the Sandwich Islands
Then we discovered what is now called Hawaii, and called it the Sandwich Islands
We then subordinated the old Sandwich Islands as a subsidiary to the new ones by calling them South Sandwich
It's as clear logic as that for the Chagos Islands belonging to Mauritius
Look at the territory that once "belonged" to England/Britain/UK over the centuries! Even if we're being "ultra-woke" and only including European land, just for a bit of fun!
Iceland - British occupied 1940-1945 Faeroes - British occupied 1940-1945 Norway - personal union 1028-1035 (King Canute) Denmark - personal union 1018-1035 (King Canute) Southern tip of Sweden - personal union (as part of Denmark) 1018-1035 Hano island - Swedish island with a British base 1810-1812 Ireland - part of the UK until 1922 France - historic actual and dynastic claims until as late as 1801 Belgium - part of France pre-1801 Luxembourg - part of France pre-1801 Geneva - part of France pre-1801 Andorra - personal union with France from before 1801 Spain - personal union 1556-1558: Queen Mary I and King Phillip II; Menorca was British (sometimes!) 1713-1802 Netherlands - part of Spain 1556-1558, personal union 1688-1702 (William III and Mary II), also southern bits part of France pre-1801 Sardinia - part of Spain 1556-1558 Sicily - part of Spain 1556-1558 Southern mainland Italy (Kingdom of Naples) - part of Spain 1556-1558 Milan duchy (Lombardy-ish) - part of Spain 1556-1558 Trieste - British occupied 1947-1954, along with a tiny sliver of modern Slovenia Lissa (Vis) - Croatian island with British base 1809-1814 (approx. dates) Ionian islands - seven Greek islands British 1815-1864 Cyprus - British until 1960 (though bases are still British), de jure includes Turkish occupied north Malta - British until 1964 Schleswig-Holstein - British occupied 1945-1949; Heligoland was British 1807-1890, 1945-1952 Lower Saxony - personal union 1714-1837 (Hanoverians), including Bremen 1715-1720; also British 1945-1949 North Rhine-Westphalia - British 1945-1949, western bits French pre-1801 Rhineland-Palatinate - western parts French pre-1801 Saarland - part of France pre-1801 West Berlin (part) - British occupied 1945-1990 East Tyrol (Lienz district) - British occupied 1945-1955 Carinthia - British 1945-1955 Styria - British 1945-1955 Vienna (part) - British occupied 1945-1955
Total area 2.2 million sq. km; modern population c.300 million.
When I first read this I thought it must be some dark satire , surely couldn’t be true but it is .
This from the WSJ reporters tweet .
In Maricopa country Arizona votes will be counted with drones overhead and police snipers standing ready . Election workers have gone through active -shooter drills and learned to barricade themselves or wield fire hoses to repel armed mobs .
The South Sandwich Islands, in the South Atlantic, are clearly owned by Hawaii in the Pacific
The South Sandwich Islands were originally called the Sandwich Islands
Then we discovered what is now called Hawaii, and called it the Sandwich Islands
We then subordinated the old Sandwich Islands as a subsidiary to the new ones by calling them South Sandwich
It's as clear logic as that for the Chagos Islands belonging to Mauritius
FAKE NEWS!
Because according to quasi-reliable source (wiki) Captain Cook named the South Atlantic islands "Sandwichland" (which sounds like a great name for a sandwich shop!)
As for "we discovered Hawaii" don't you think the Hawai'ians deserve SOME credit? Seeing as how their forebears got their way before Cook & etc., etc.?
The "subordination" bit is of course your little joke! Though note that an intrepid (and idiotic) officer of the Royal Navy DID seize the Hawaiian Island, overthrew the rule of the King of Hawai'i and his govt, and attempted to annex the islands - acts repudiated by UK govt as soon as they learned about them.
Making UK at least morally superior in this respect to US a half-century later.
There are, apparently, some memos from the Foreign and Colonial Office, where the mandarins, on being informed that some mad adventurer had extended the British Empire, essentially expressed it thus "FFS, who let them do this shit? Aargh, now we have to take responsibility. Fuck, Fuck, Fuck....."
Terry Pratchett's Jingo
The King had sent Tacticus [to Genua] out of sheer exasperation. It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting blood-stained letters on the lines of "Dear sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay". The man never knew when to stop...
You had a border, and across the border came bandits. So you sent a force to quell the bandits, and in order to stamp them out you had to take over their country, and soon you had another restless little vassal state to rule. And now that had a border, over which came, sure as sunrise, a fresh lot of raiders. So your new tax-paying subjects were demanding protection from their brother raiders, neglecting to pay their taxes, and doing a little light banditry on the side. And so once again you stretched your forces, whether you wanted to or not…
For the serious empire-builder there was no such thing as a final frontier. There was only another problem. If only people would understand…
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
If you think about it, all the opposing arguments have just been he's an asshole, a criminal, a threat and people supporting him are dumb.
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
???
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
What has he done to trigger this latest round of pearl-clutching? Is it something to do with paintings again?
Nah. Starmer's just a prat and its clear for all to see
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
If you think about it, all the opposing arguments have just been he's an asshole, a criminal, a threat and people supporting him are dumb.
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
That's untrue, they have talked about his economic policies like on tariffs etc, pointing out he torpedoed a bipartisan deal on the border etc.
Also, those things are not 'not very much at all', even if they are indeed insufficient since, even if true, you need to go beyond that in order to get support. But it is not the case that policy reasons have not been brought up.
But they needed to do better, and not have some of the weaknesses they do hanging around their necks - they still don't really get why many back Trump.
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
Look at the swing in BC in Canada from the left to the right, if people feel unsafe they will vote accordingly and the left absolutely destroyed BC with terrible drug and theft decriminalisation. The CPC were literally wiped out last time and now they almost won a majority.
The Tories will have a lot to learn from this elections and the next Canadian election. Even Trump winning on the basis of prosecuting criminals and drug dealers will appeal to a lot of ordinary people who are sick of seeing nothing done about crime.
The issue the Dems have is even if Harris and Walz were signed up to pushing for recriminalisation of drugs and theft there are too many local democrat politicians and Congress people who will oppose that policy which dilutes it's effectiveness in the eyes of the voters they need.
More than anything else I think too many people are just fed up of low level crime. Even staunch lefties struggle to defend it now, usually you just get a barrage of arrest statistics showing that arrests are down as if that's supposed to show that crime is down rather than the police just giving up.
Some people sympathise with Trump because the very things thrown at him, that he's criminal, a liar, nasty and a threat, are also similar words thrown by some on the Left towards Whites.
In a country where (let's not kid ourselves) nastiness and violence has been part of the shadier parts of its political process since time immemorial it's not nearly the deterrent to voting for him that it would be, say, in the UK.
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
If you think about it, all the opposing arguments have just been he's an asshole, a criminal, a threat and people supporting him are dumb.
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
So Trump being a criminal isn’t sufficient reason to not vote for him .
It's one of the smartest things he's done for awhile, harder to attack than yet another rambly speech for a start, and probably plays reasonably well.
Indeed, though Harris spent the day at a black church in Atlanta, evangelicals might think that rather more befitting of the Sabbath than doing a shift at McDonalds
Was there any proper studies done after the fact about risk of COVID to people based upon ethnicity that properly controlled for exposure etc? We had some breathless reporting in the first year of COVID and some politicians demanding special extra protection based upon ethnicity.
If I remember correctly the three main factors in the end were age, certain underlying health conditions and obesity. Much of the other differences e.g. early higher levels of death among certain groups, was simply down to who was being exposed.
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
If you think about it, all the opposing arguments have just been he's an asshole, a criminal, a threat and people supporting him are dumb.
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
So Trump being a criminal isn’t sufficient reason to not vote for him .
Yes. You might not agree but you have to view the US electorate as it is, and not how you'd like it to be.
[For one thing, plenty will think those convictions are either exaggerated or synthesised and there is just as much "criminality" on the other side as there is on theirs, so will dismiss it entirely]
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
If you think about it, all the opposing arguments have just been he's an asshole, a criminal, a threat and people supporting him are dumb.
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
That's untrue, they have talked about his economic policies like on tariffs etc, pointing out he torpedoed a bipartisan deal on the border etc.
Also, those things are not 'not very much at all', even if they are indeed insufficient since, even if true, you need to go beyond that in order to get support. But it is not the case that policy reasons have not been brought up.
But they needed to do better, and not have some of the weaknesses they do hanging around their necks - they still don't really get why many back Trump.
If they have, I haven't heard them.
90% of the opposition is down to his character which, to be fair, I quite agree with.
But, as a punter you have to put yourself into the mindset of an American swing voter here.
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
If you think about it, all the opposing arguments have just been he's an asshole, a criminal, a threat and people supporting him are dumb.
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
So Trump being a criminal isn’t sufficient reason to not vote for him .
Yes. You might not agree but you have to view the US electorate as it is, and not how you'd like it to be.
[For one thing, plenty will think those convictions are either exaggerated or synthesised and there is just as much "criminality" on the other side as there is on theirs, so will dismiss it entirely]
I’ve given up trying to understand the US electorate . So far thankfully we still have lines in the UK you can’t cross as a politician if you want to be elected .
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The good news is the tide is going out on this shit and, once it does, we'll never have to listen to hyper-liberals ever again so just hang on in there and the victory will be ever so sweet.
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The good news is the tide is going out on this shit and, once it does, we'll never have to listen to hyper-liberals ever again so just hang on in there and the victory will be ever so sweet.
I think it is still very strong in academia, particularly in the US....hence this new push for the term Global Majority.
On topic: I think a hung parliament is most like at the next election but whether that yields a Lab-Lib government or a Con-Ref government is unknowable at the moment...
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
???
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
What has he done to trigger this latest round of pearl-clutching? Is it something to do with paintings again?
Nah. Starmer's just a prat and its clear for all to see
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The good news is the tide is going out on this shit and, once it does, we'll never have to listen to hyper-liberals ever again so just hang on in there and the victory will be ever so sweet.
I think it is still very strong in academia, particularly in the US....hence this new push for the term Global Majority.
Wait if that makes us the global minority, does it mean we become a protected class under woke rules? I assume not.
Today's numbers. Starting to see some Trump leads in high-quality national polls, which is certainly not a great sign for Harris. Very close race, though."
Safe cities, secure borders and free speech etc. are a strong appeal to a Democrat ticket that just hasn't delivered in recent years.
It's just insane that they have let things get to the point that 48-52% people think such an unpleasant person is the better alternative. Even if they manage to squeeze a win, that's a real indictment of how things are - even if not as bad as some think, why do they think that? And media is not an excuse in itselfr.
If you think about it, all the opposing arguments have just been he's an asshole, a criminal, a threat and people supporting him are dumb.
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
That's untrue, they have talked about his economic policies like on tariffs etc, pointing out he torpedoed a bipartisan deal on the border etc.
Also, those things are not 'not very much at all', even if they are indeed insufficient since, even if true, you need to go beyond that in order to get support. But it is not the case that policy reasons have not been brought up.
But they needed to do better, and not have some of the weaknesses they do hanging around their necks - they still don't really get why many back Trump.
Though you can say the same of the Republican establishment. There's been plenty of (ultimately ineffectual) opposition to Trump on the red side as well. As well there should be- even if his actions in January 2021 weren't strictly illegal they should have caused his shunning in a democratic state.
As rcs has been pointing out throughout, people's lived experience of the economy should have made it a shoe-in for the Republicans; there's a lack of feelgood, even if it's not particularly the incumbent's fault. But some people get more satisfaction for blaming The Libs for their failings than The Cons for theirs.
I've had quite a depressing weekend. My cousin Tom was found dead in bed yesterday morning
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
On topic: I think a hung parliament is most like at the next election but whether that yields a Lab-Lib government or a Con-Ref government is unknowable at the moment...
I think the equation is very simple. If Labour inflict all these tax rises and spend big on infrastructure, and we don't see significant growth, then yes. If instead in 4 years all these moves have led to growth, improvement in public services and people feeling better about their lives, nothing any other party promises matters.
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The good news is the tide is going out on this shit and, once it does, we'll never have to listen to hyper-liberals ever again so just hang on in there and the victory will be ever so sweet.
I think it is still very strong in academia, particularly in the US....hence this new push for the term Global Majority.
Wait if that makes us the global minority, does it mean we become a protected class under woke rules? I assume not.
I believe the argument goes cos of colonialism, slavery, racism, oppression, global minority still hold all the power, so no, and because of all the past, that even if the global majority get more power, still historical euro-centric power, so still no.
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The good news is the tide is going out on this shit and, once it does, we'll never have to listen to hyper-liberals ever again so just hang on in there and the victory will be ever so sweet.
I think it is still very strong in academia, particularly in the US....hence this new push for the term Global Majority.
Wait if that makes us the global minority, does it mean we become a protected class under woke rules? I assume not.
No it makes you racist, descendents of colonisers and slave owners and who must be pushed into the global underclass you deserve to be left in for the sins of your evil race
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The good news is the tide is going out on this shit and, once it does, we'll never have to listen to hyper-liberals ever again so just hang on in there and the victory will be ever so sweet.
I think it is still very strong in academia, particularly in the US....hence this new push for the term Global Majority.
I believe in free trade in most things, but can we please put a ten million percent tariff (minimum £1k) on Americanisms, and in particular a ten billion percent (minimum £1m) tax on woke Americanisms?
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do? No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division. https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
Global Majority is the new PC term being pushed after certain groups got offended by the old pc term of Global South, which was the old new pc term after....
It's just so dumb even for one of these things.
I wouldn't fancy being academia around these subjects, by the time your paper has gone from writing to publication using the current in vogue terminology, you could now find that yourself being seen as a massive bigot for using last seasons terminology...let alone any academics from 10 years ago, they were obviously racist colonialist supporters because they used the term developing countries.
The good news is the tide is going out on this shit and, once it does, we'll never have to listen to hyper-liberals ever again so just hang on in there and the victory will be ever so sweet.
I think it is still very strong in academia, particularly in the US....hence this new push for the term Global Majority.
Wait if that makes us the global minority, does it mean we become a protected class under woke rules? I assume not.
No it makes you racist, descendents of colonisers and slave owners and who must be pushed into the global underclass you deserve to be left in for the sins of your evil race
One sends one’s thoughts and prayers to the PB Tories who remain scarred by CURRYGATE, and now have to face this.
Your guy is rapidly appearing to be a duffer. He's better than Johnson and Truss, but - as I think you keep on point out - he has a mahoosive majority, yet keeps on making pratfall after pratfall. Unforced errors abound in this government.
As I've said before, we need to give them time to settle in. But the messes they've got themselves into are absolutely hilarious. The question is whether he, and his government, will learn from those messes.
I hope he does, as the country needs some stability for a while.
LOL. What has he done now? Moved another painting?
You really need to keep up with the news, or check your memory. Do you think his government has got off to a faultless start?
I wonder what SKS would have to do before you strongly criticise him.
I am merely asking what is the latest rick on the Curry-Donkey-Swift continuum. I know it’s important. I just struggle to keep up.
Your reply shows exactly why Labour may fail. No acknowledgement that they've made missteps; no understanding. In fact, no fucking clue.
If the Conservatives weren't in such a hideous state (with few signs of recovery...) then Labour would be in real trouble.
The country deserves better. I hope Labour improve.
The nit-picking from the Tory press and its acolytes here is becoming tedious. Just because he didn’t go to a public school and ‘only’ went to Oxford’ for postgraduate studies.
???
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
What has he done to trigger this latest round of pearl-clutching? Is it something to do with paintings again?
Nah. Starmer's just a prat and its clear for all to see
There is a lot of a crap, publicly owned art. Around the world.
A friend who works in the art history world told me that much of the good stuff had been taken from Versailles to Paris. Hence the hideous daubs of Louis XXXXXXIXVs eleventh favourite, assistant mistress etc on many of the walls.
I was there once and a very chubby South Koean kid wiped his hand on his T-shirt and was about to touch one of the viler paintings with his crisp encrusted hand. I nearly said something, then realised that he would probably improve it.
On topic: I think a hung parliament is most like at the next election but whether that yields a Lab-Lib government or a Con-Ref government is unknowable at the moment...
I think the equation is very simple. If Labour inflict all these tax rises and spend big on infrastructure, and we don't see significant growth, then yes. If instead in 4 years all these moves have led to growth, improvement in public services and people feeling better about their lives, nothing any other party promises matters.
Not only that.
To an extent, the economic success or failure of any government is out of its hands. Plenty of governments have fallen (or had near-death experiences) because of the post-pandemic feelbad factor. There's not a great deal anyone can do about the demographic bulge working through to retirement. War and peace around the world, or idiot traders doing something that falls apart will just happen or not happen. But Mr and Mrs Voter will judge the government's outcomes as if they were in control of all this.
And if you think His Majesty's Government doesn't have much power to direct events, wait until you look at His Majesty's Opposition...
On topic: I think a hung parliament is most like at the next election but whether that yields a Lab-Lib government or a Con-Ref government is unknowable at the moment...
I think the equation is very simple. If Labour inflict all these tax rises and spend big on infrastructure, and we don't see significant growth, then yes. If instead in 4 years all these moves have led to growth, improvement in public services and people feeling better about their lives, nothing any other party promises matters.
I'm not sure... Even if everything goes amazingly well, I don't think the unique (bizarre) circumstances that came together to give Labour 170 majority on 33% of the vote will ever be seen again.
The South Sandwich Islands, in the South Atlantic, are clearly owned by Hawaii in the Pacific
The South Sandwich Islands were originally called the Sandwich Islands
Then we discovered what is now called Hawaii, and called it the Sandwich Islands
We then subordinated the old Sandwich Islands as a subsidiary to the new ones by calling them South Sandwich
It's as clear logic as that for the Chagos Islands belonging to Mauritius
FAKE NEWS!
Because according to quasi-reliable source (wiki) Captain Cook named the South Atlantic islands "Sandwichland" (which sounds like a great name for a sandwich shop!)
As for "we discovered Hawaii" don't you think the Hawai'ians deserve SOME credit? Seeing as how their forebears got their way before Cook & etc., etc.?
The "subordination" bit is of course your little joke! Though note that an intrepid (and idiotic) officer of the Royal Navy DID seize the Hawaiian Island, overthrew the rule of the King of Hawai'i and his govt, and attempted to annex the islands - acts repudiated by UK govt as soon as they learned about them.
Making UK at least morally superior in this respect to US a half-century later.
There are, apparently, some memos from the Foreign and Colonial Office, where the mandarins, on being informed that some mad adventurer had extended the British Empire, essentially expressed it thus "FFS, who let them do this shit? Aargh, now we have to take responsibility. Fuck, Fuck, Fuck....."
Terry Pratchett's Jingo
The King had sent Tacticus [to Genua] out of sheer exasperation. It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting blood-stained letters on the lines of "Dear sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay". The man never knew when to stop...
You had a border, and across the border came bandits. So you sent a force to quell the bandits, and in order to stamp them out you had to take over their country, and soon you had another restless little vassal state to rule. And now that had a border, over which came, sure as sunrise, a fresh lot of raiders. So your new tax-paying subjects were demanding protection from their brother raiders, neglecting to pay their taxes, and doing a little light banditry on the side. And so once again you stretched your forces, whether you wanted to or not…
For the serious empire-builder there was no such thing as a final frontier. There was only another problem. If only people would understand…
Sir Bindon Blood was a striking figure in these savage mountains and among these wild rifle-armed clansmen. He looked very much more formidable in his uniform, mounted, with his standard-bearer and cavalcade, than he had done when I had seen him in safe and comfortable England. He had seen a great deal of the British and Indian armies in war and peace, and he had no illusions on any point.
He was very proud to be the direct descendant of the notorious Colonel Blood, who in the reign of King Charles II had attempted to steal by armed force the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London. The episode is in the history books. The Colonel was arrested as he quitted the Tower gates with important parts of the regalia in his hands. Brought to trial for high treason and several other capital offences, he was acquitted and immediately appointed to command the King's bodyguard. This strange sequence of events gave rise to scurrilous suggestions that his attempt to abstract the Crown Jewels from the Tower had the connivance of the Sovereign himself. It is certainly true that the King was very short of money in those hard times, and that the predecessors of Mr. Attenborough were already in existence in various parts of Europe.
However this may be, Sir Bindon Blood regarded the attempted stealing of the Crown Jewels by his ancestor as the most glorious event in his family history, and in consequence he had warm sympathy with the Pathan tribes on the Indian frontier, all of whom would have completely understood the incident in all its bearings, and would have bestowed unstinted and discriminating applause upon all parties. If the General could have got them all together and told them the story at length by broadcast, it would never have been necessary for three brigades with endless tails of mule and camel transport to toil through the mountains and sparsely populated highlands in which my next few weeks were to be passed.
On topic: I think a hung parliament is most like at the next election but whether that yields a Lab-Lib government or a Con-Ref government is unknowable at the moment...
I think the equation is very simple. If Labour inflict all these tax rises and spend big on infrastructure, and we don't see significant growth, then yes. If instead in 4 years all these moves have led to growth, improvement in public services and people feeling better about their lives, nothing any other party promises matters.
I'm not sure... Even if everything goes amazingly well, I don't think the unique (bizarre) circumstances that came together to give Labour 170 majority on 33% of the vote will ever be seen again.
Personally, I think Labour's vote share was so low in large part because it was clear they were going to win a large majority.
On topic: I think a hung parliament is most like at the next election but whether that yields a Lab-Lib government or a Con-Ref government is unknowable at the moment...
I think the equation is very simple. If Labour inflict all these tax rises and spend big on infrastructure, and we don't see significant growth, then yes. If instead in 4 years all these moves have led to growth, improvement in public services and people feeling better about their lives, nothing any other party promises matters.
Not only that.
To an extent, the economic success or failure of any government is out of its hands. Plenty of governments have fallen (or had near-death experiences) because of the post-pandemic feelbad factor. There's not a great deal anyone can do about the demographic bulge working through to retirement. War and peace around the world, or idiot traders doing something that falls apart will just happen or not happen. But Mr and Mrs Voter will judge the government's outcomes as if they were in control of all this.
And if you think His Majesty's Government doesn't have much power to direct events, wait until you look at His Majesty's Opposition...
Sure. It is why Brown's boast of abolishing boom and bust was so stupid.
What government can do is a) set the right conditions for business to flourish and b) spend on building infrastructure to hopefully boost productivity from road / rail to get people about to health and education of workers.
I also think that at least in the UK voters are quite fair minded in a way. It doesn't need to be that the government has been perfect or absolutely smashed it out the park, rather that the management looks sensible and the direction of travel seems to be on the right track. And vice versa, once that has gone, you get punished.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrographia
The Tories will have a lot to learn from this elections and the next Canadian election. Even Trump winning on the basis of prosecuting criminals and drug dealers will appeal to a lot of ordinary people who are sick of seeing nothing done about crime.
The issue the Dems have is even if Harris and Walz were signed up to pushing for recriminalisation of drugs and theft there are too many local democrat politicians and Congress people who will oppose that policy which dilutes it's effectiveness in the eyes of the voters they need.
More than anything else I think too many people are just fed up of low level crime. Even staunch lefties struggle to defend it now, usually you just get a barrage of arrest statistics showing that arrests are down as if that's supposed to show that crime is down rather than the police just giving up.
It's fun, very watchable, very over the top. A romp, as others have said. Reminds me of White Gold a bit, only much more intended for the female gaze.
"Guess I was wrong about you. You're not such an asshole after all!"
He was four years younger than me at 42. One of his sisters died three years ago at 40. My only Auntie (my Mum's only sibling, my Dad's an only child) has lost two of her five kids. I can't imagine how she and the other three must be feeling
Their hygiene rating will drop to a zero.
I can’t fathom the stupidity of those Democrats who favour sanctuary cities and high crime.
He's never had class.
Speaking personally, AFAICR I've never criticised him because he did not go to a public school, and ditto Oxford (though being a fan of Cambridge, that took some restraint...)
SKS is getting criticised because he is making stupid mistakes that take shine off his reputation; not tha he had a lot to begin with. And mistakes which appear, at best, silly. In the case of the good Lord Alli, they appear somewhat worse.
The South Sandwich Islands were originally called the Sandwich Islands
Then we discovered what is now called Hawaii, and called it the Sandwich Islands
We then subordinated the old Sandwich Islands as a subsidiary to the new ones by calling them South Sandwich
It's as clear logic as that for the Chagos Islands belonging to Mauritius
Perhaps even while doing his shift.
Note that NDP was elected in BC in 2017 following two decades of rule by BC Liberal Party, which was actually conservative, and continuation of creation of anti-NDP center-right coalition.
Re: statement that the Conservative in BC, "were literally wiped out last time and now they almost won a majority" fact is that in 2020 provincial election, it was the BC Liberals who were the opposition to the NDP from the right, leaving zero room for then-moribund BC Conservatives. Since then, the Libs kept falling in the polls, due to lackluster performance & leadership, but also to having "Liberal" in their name thus linking them to unpopular Trudeau federal Libs.
BC Conservatives essentially stole their wash from the line; former BC Lib backers stopped backing them and went for what was essentiall rebranding as new & improved Conservative Party of BC.
Which is actually a tradition in BC politics! Starting shortly after WWII
> Worn-out Lib-Con coaltion was replaced by BC Social Credit Party, and managed to keep NDP out of power (the goal of the "free enterprise" voters)
> After four decades in power (interrupted by just 4 years under NDP govt) the Socreds disentergrated due to scandals high & low, and were quickly superceded by formerly-moribund BC Liberals, who rebranded the anti-NDP side of politics.
> BC Liberals ruled the roost - at one opposition NDP had only ONE seat in the Legislature - but then the tides of time plus . . . wait for it . . . more scandal ended up defeating the Libs, to benefit of NDP, though it was being rivaled to the left by the rise of the Greens.
> In 2017 election, the BC Libs tied the NDP but were out of govt, because two Green MLAs backed minority NDP govt, which increased it vote and won a strong majority in 2020, thanks to COVID bump AND lackluster Libs leadership)
> THAT set the stage for the (apparently) final demise of BC Libs in August 2024, and rebranding as new (!) & improved (?) Conservative Party of British Columbia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_British_Columbia_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_British_Columbia_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_British_Columbia_general_election
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg78ljxn8g7o
Musk to give away $1m per day to Pennsylvania voters
Tech billionaire Elon Musk has said he will give away $1m (£766,000) a day to a registered voter in the key swing state of Pennsylvania until the US presidential election in November.
The winner will be chosen at random from those who sign a pro-constitution petition by Mr Musk’s campaign group AmericaPAC which he set up to support Republican nominee Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House.
I haven't seen a link to buying her book which is apparently being released in December but I've seen the cover
And she's Wendy Mewes @BrittanyExpert on X
https://x.com/brittanyexpert
Because according to quasi-reliable source (wiki) Captain Cook named the South Atlantic islands "Sandwichland" (which sounds like a great name for a sandwich shop!)
As for "we discovered Hawaii" don't you think the Hawai'ians deserve SOME credit? Seeing as how their forebears got their way before Cook & etc., etc.?
The "subordination" bit is of course your little joke! Though note that an intrepid (and idiotic) officer of the Royal Navy DID seize the Hawaiian Island, overthrew the rule of the King of Hawai'i and his govt, and attempted to annex the islands - acts repudiated by UK govt as soon as they learned about them.
Making UK at least morally superior in this respect to US a half-century later.
Speaking of
Should we drop ethnic minority for global majority?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981g43vmmro?xtor
No, it's a silly term (even more than most ethnic designations). What possible use does lumping all those disparate groups together do?
No. What an insane question. “Global majority” is a poorly understood and offensive term for Brits to use. It means classifying non white Brits - not with their fellow citizens - but with the birthplace of their parents, grandparents. Far left and far right seek same division.
https://nitter.poast.org/JamesKanag/status/1848074512610316368#m
As Musk said...with no apparent sense of irony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWtXSKSQSY
Boris being economical with the truth, surely not. More interestingly its the Telegraph pointing this out.
You, and your fellow Privileged White Males have made minorities feel bad for living longer. Made minorities feel bad
Once again, your inherent patriarchal racism shows through.
Now go away and think about your sins.
Or something.
Putting aside some dodgy evidence for some of his claims, the main criticism of the first season was he was actually some sort of massive racist / white supremacist because he takes the folktales from indigenous people literally and used incorrect non-pc terminology...or something like that (and if I remember correctly, the "massive racist", is married to a non-white lady).
Iceland - British occupied 1940-1945
Faeroes - British occupied 1940-1945
Norway - personal union 1028-1035 (King Canute)
Denmark - personal union 1018-1035 (King Canute)
Southern tip of Sweden - personal union (as part of Denmark) 1018-1035
Hano island - Swedish island with a British base 1810-1812
Ireland - part of the UK until 1922
France - historic actual and dynastic claims until as late as 1801
Belgium - part of France pre-1801
Luxembourg - part of France pre-1801
Geneva - part of France pre-1801
Andorra - personal union with France from before 1801
Spain - personal union 1556-1558: Queen Mary I and King Phillip II; Menorca was British (sometimes!) 1713-1802
Netherlands - part of Spain 1556-1558, personal union 1688-1702 (William III and Mary II), also southern bits part of France pre-1801
Sardinia - part of Spain 1556-1558
Sicily - part of Spain 1556-1558
Southern mainland Italy (Kingdom of Naples) - part of Spain 1556-1558
Milan duchy (Lombardy-ish) - part of Spain 1556-1558
Trieste - British occupied 1947-1954, along with a tiny sliver of modern Slovenia
Lissa (Vis) - Croatian island with British base 1809-1814 (approx. dates)
Ionian islands - seven Greek islands British 1815-1864
Cyprus - British until 1960 (though bases are still British), de jure includes Turkish occupied north
Malta - British until 1964
Schleswig-Holstein - British occupied 1945-1949; Heligoland was British 1807-1890, 1945-1952
Lower Saxony - personal union 1714-1837 (Hanoverians), including Bremen 1715-1720; also British 1945-1949
North Rhine-Westphalia - British 1945-1949, western bits French pre-1801
Rhineland-Palatinate - western parts French pre-1801
Saarland - part of France pre-1801
West Berlin (part) - British occupied 1945-1990
East Tyrol (Lienz district) - British occupied 1945-1955
Carinthia - British 1945-1955
Styria - British 1945-1955
Vienna (part) - British occupied 1945-1955
Total area 2.2 million sq. km; modern population c.300 million.
When I first read this I thought it must be some dark satire , surely couldn’t be true but it is .
This from the WSJ reporters tweet .
In Maricopa country Arizona votes will be counted with drones overhead and police snipers standing ready . Election workers have gone through active -shooter drills and learned to barricade themselves or wield fire hoses to repel armed mobs .
The King had sent Tacticus [to Genua] out of sheer exasperation. It's hard to run a proper empire when you're constantly getting blood-stained letters on the lines of "Dear sire, I beg to inform you that we have conquered Betrek, Smale and Ushistan. Please send AM$20,000 back pay". The man never knew when to stop...
You had a border, and across the border came bandits. So you sent a force to quell the bandits, and in order to stamp them out you had to take over their country, and soon you had another restless little vassal state to rule. And now that had a border, over which came, sure as sunrise, a fresh lot of raiders. So your new tax-paying subjects were demanding protection from their brother raiders, neglecting to pay their taxes, and doing a little light banditry on the side. And so once again you stretched your forces, whether you wanted to or not…
For the serious empire-builder there was no such thing as a final frontier. There was only another problem. If only people would understand…
But, if that's all you've got you've not got very much at all.
Trump put on an apron, made and served french fries to reporters and customers at a Philadelphia McDonald's Sunday afternoon'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-makes-fries-philadelphia-mcdonalds-ive-now-worked-15-minutes-more-than-kamala
Also, those things are not 'not very much at all', even if they are indeed insufficient since, even if true, you need to go beyond that in order to get support. But it is not the case that policy reasons have not been brought up.
But they needed to do better, and not have some of the weaknesses they do hanging around their necks - they still don't really get why many back Trump.
In a country where (let's not kid ourselves) nastiness and violence has been part of the shadier parts of its political process since time immemorial it's not nearly the deterrent to voting for him that it would be, say, in the UK.
My condolences. Truly horrid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R54okUuq0Yw
If I remember correctly the three main factors in the end were age, certain underlying health conditions and obesity. Much of the other differences e.g. early higher levels of death among certain groups, was simply down to who was being exposed.
[For one thing, plenty will think those convictions are either exaggerated or synthesised and there is just as much "criminality" on the other side as there is on theirs, so will dismiss it entirely]
90% of the opposition is down to his character which, to be fair, I quite agree with.
But, as a punter you have to put yourself into the mindset of an American swing voter here.
On topic: I think a hung parliament is most like at the next election but whether that yields a Lab-Lib government or a Con-Ref government is unknowable at the moment...
It's not that attractive a painting IMO and the paintings get rotated, here's a whine by the taxpayers alliance that only 3% are on display https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_government_owns_3_5_billion_worth_of_art_but_only_3_per_cent_of_it_is_on_display
presumably there's a companion whine about the cost of public museums
As rcs has been pointing out throughout, people's lived experience of the economy should have made it a shoe-in for the Republicans; there's a lack of feelgood, even if it's not particularly the incumbent's fault. But some people get more satisfaction for blaming The Libs for their failings than The Cons for theirs.
A friend who works in the art history world told me that much of the good stuff had been taken from Versailles to Paris. Hence the hideous daubs of Louis XXXXXXIXVs eleventh favourite, assistant mistress etc on many of the walls.
I was there once and a very chubby South Koean kid wiped his hand on his T-shirt and was about to touch one of the viler paintings with his crisp encrusted hand. I nearly said something, then realised that he would probably improve it.
To an extent, the economic success or failure of any government is out of its hands. Plenty of governments have fallen (or had near-death experiences) because of the post-pandemic feelbad factor. There's not a great deal anyone can do about the demographic bulge working through to retirement. War and peace around the world, or idiot traders doing something that falls apart will just happen or not happen. But Mr and Mrs Voter will judge the government's outcomes as if they were in control of all this.
And if you think His Majesty's Government doesn't have much power to direct events, wait until you look at His Majesty's Opposition...
Sir Bindon Blood was a striking figure in these savage mountains and among these wild rifle-armed clansmen. He looked very much more formidable in his uniform, mounted, with his standard-bearer and cavalcade, than he had done when I had seen him in safe and comfortable England. He had seen a great deal of the British and Indian armies in war and peace, and he had no illusions on any point.
He was very proud to be the direct descendant of the notorious Colonel Blood, who in the reign of King Charles II had attempted to steal by armed force the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London. The episode is in the history books. The Colonel was arrested as he quitted the Tower gates with important parts of the regalia in his hands. Brought to trial for high treason and several other capital offences, he was acquitted and immediately appointed to command the King's bodyguard. This strange sequence of events gave rise to scurrilous suggestions that his attempt to abstract the Crown Jewels from the Tower had the connivance of the Sovereign himself. It is certainly true that the King was very short of money in those hard times, and that the predecessors of Mr. Attenborough were already in existence in various parts of Europe.
However this may be, Sir Bindon Blood regarded the attempted stealing of the Crown Jewels by his ancestor as the most glorious event in his family history, and in consequence he had warm sympathy with the Pathan tribes on the Indian frontier, all of whom would have completely understood the incident in all its bearings, and would have bestowed unstinted and discriminating applause upon all parties. If the General could have got them all together and told them the story at length by broadcast, it would never have been necessary for three brigades with endless tails of mule and camel transport to toil through the mountains and sparsely populated highlands in which my next few weeks were to be passed.
What government can do is a) set the right conditions for business to flourish and b) spend on building infrastructure to hopefully boost productivity from road / rail to get people about to health and education of workers.
I also think that at least in the UK voters are quite fair minded in a way. It doesn't need to be that the government has been perfect or absolutely smashed it out the park, rather that the management looks sensible and the direction of travel seems to be on the right track. And vice versa, once that has gone, you get punished.