You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
There’s an awful lot of voter churn at this election, as both parties have tried appealing to certain demographics in ways that have alienated others at the same time. Some groups are focusing on economic issues, and others on social issues compared to 2020.
I still think it’s too close to call in many of the swing States, although the crap polling that keeps telling us it’s definitely 50/50 or 51/49 in either direction, isn’t helping much.
Today is the final day for voter registration in Pennsylvania, likely to be the deciding State. Both sides’ national campaigns have been attending numerous events there over the weekend.
Something to note, now that we've established that the GOP-aligned pollsters are not actually responsible for the tightening poll numbers: a lot of this comes from Trump consolidating his vote, even as Harris' stays steady...
You can see that when Harris came in the race, she consolidated Democrats and Dem-leaning independents really quickly. Trump managed to pull a few GOP-leaning stragglers to his side as the election nears, and I'd guess that this is a lot of what's driving this.
Apparently this awful security queue for the National Gallery is now permanent. I used to just walk up the steps and in. Just Stop Oil madness means this is just the future we are a living in.
Sad. My London days ended 40 years ago and one of the many delights was to be able to go into the National Gallery regularly and often just for a short time at some point in a working day.
It is really sad if it is true
As you say, one of the great joys of london is - was - just nipping into the national gallery to look at maybe one single painting for five minutes - the Rokeby Venus or Whisteljacket
If that is taken away from us by Tarquins with paint
Fuck em
No actual statement from the NG, I see, just what some person on Twitter imagines to be the case.
Blockbuster exhibition? And some other reason for security? Museums and galleries have always varied their security.
I would be genuinely interested in which art gallery/exhibition PBers last attended. I assume from their regular fits of the vapours over security glass & soup that they’re enthusiastic art lovers.
I visit them all the time. It’s part of my job
An absolute gem is Leicester museums German expressionism collection.
More interesting for me than the recent Tate Kandinsky and the Blue Rider exhibiton (which was saved by the Franz Marc paintings even though they were displayed in an idiotic position).
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Much easier to tell a compelling story if you're prepared to make stuff up.
Yes, but also if you haven't had a collapse of one your main pillars - the egalitarianism within Marxism - forty years before.
The Right can pull all the traditional cords of belonging from before even the modern era, but the left hasn't found anything to replace this common vision.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Be aware that Leon's definition of 'educated' might be quite different from ours...
On topic, being young and right wing was never an issue for me wrt dating. Most girls didn't care very much about it and as long as you're not a dickhead on the first date and start espousing the dangers of high tax or quoting Milton Friedman etc... then it doesn't even come into conversation. My wife was an active member of the Swiss leftist party when we met, we're married with two kids now. People who let politics prevent them from forming personal relationships are sad and deserve to be lonely.
Agreed, within reason - as you say, the exception is if it dominates the early conversation. In general politics is either not that important to people (in which case who cares) or deep and complex (in which case it's something to discuss with interest at a later date). I just shy away from people who have strong but uninformed views which they thrust on you at the first opportunity.
The specific issue with young men being Trump supporters is surely not about being right wing, after all traditionally women were more conservative than men in their voting. It’s that one of MAGA’s signature policies is misogynistic and - at its extreme among some in the party - borderline Taliban.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
There’s an awful lot of voter churn at this election, as both parties have tried appealing to certain demographics in ways that have alienated others at the same time. Some groups are focusing on economic issues, and others on social issues compared to 2020.
I still think it’s too close to call in many of the swing States, although the crap polling that keeps telling us it’s definitely 50/50 or 51/49 in either direction, isn’t helping much.
Today is the final day for voter registration in Pennsylvania, likely to be the deciding State. Both sides’ national campaigns have been attending numerous events there over the weekend.
I still believe Harris will win, even though she is a mediocre candidate who has run a poor campaign after a decent start
Too many Americans will, in the end, shy away from Trump. Personally I would shy away from him
But I can also understand why sane, smart Americans can look at the state of their country, and the state of the Woke Democrats, and decide: yep, Trump is a risk but the Democrats are an even crazier risk. Which is why this is going down to the wire
On topic, being young and right wing was never an issue for me wrt dating. Most girls didn't care very much about it and as long as you're not a dickhead on the first date and start espousing the dangers of high tax or quoting Milton Friedman etc... then it doesn't even come into conversation. My wife was an active member of the Swiss leftist party when we met, we're married with two kids now. People who let politics prevent them from forming personal relationships are sad and deserve to be lonely.
Agreed, within reason - as you say, the exception is if it dominates the early conversation. In general politics is either not that important to people (in which case who cares) or deep and complex (in which case it's something to discuss with interest at a later date). I just shy away from people who have strong but uninformed views which they thrust on you at the first opportunity.
The specific issue with young men being Trump supporters is surely not about being right wing, after all traditionally women were more conservative than men in their voting. It’s that one of MAGA’s signature policies is misogynistic and - at its extreme among some in the party - borderline Taliban.
I don't have an opinion about whether it's right but there was another relevant Yglesias tweet on this:
"Beyond the narrow political stakes I think one reason Trump voting is a turnoff is that it’s ecologically associated with low levels of education & occupational status, social isolation, and other qualities that per Phil’s point are undesirable." https://nitter.poast.org/mattyglesias/status/1847307951985381529
Apparently this awful security queue for the National Gallery is now permanent. I used to just walk up the steps and in. Just Stop Oil madness means this is just the future we are a living in.
Sad. My London days ended 40 years ago and one of the many delights was to be able to go into the National Gallery regularly and often just for a short time at some point in a working day.
It is really sad if it is true
As you say, one of the great joys of london is - was - just nipping into the national gallery to look at maybe one single painting for five minutes - the Rokeby Venus or Whisteljacket
If that is taken away from us by Tarquins with paint
Fuck em
No actual statement from the NG, I see, just what some person on Twitter imagines to be the case.
Blockbuster exhibition? And some other reason for security? Museums and galleries have always varied their security.
I would be genuinely interested in which art gallery/exhibition PBers last attended. I assume from their regular fits of the vapours over security glass & soup that they’re enthusiastic art lovers.
I went to see the Brian Lalor Retrospective at the Uillinn.
We were going to wander around the Crawford before it closed for refurbishment, but the cafe inside was gone already, we were hungry, and we didn't make it back to the gallery that day.
The Burrell Collection in Glasgow (Southside) is fantastic. Well worth the effort of getting to it. They hosted a Degas exhibition I went to, a year or two back.
I consider "fits of vapours" an appropriate response to twonks compromising the pleasures of gallery-cruising.
Gallery-cruising? From which pocket do you hang your bandanna?
Since the soup throwing seems to be mainly an English phenomenon and afaik hasn’t affected access to Scottish galleries, I assume your vapours are selflessly on behalf of your southern fellow cruisers.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
Meanwhile the enshittification of business travel exhibit B: Eurostar this morning to Paris in standard class. Long queues, virtually no free seats in the waiting area and a Pret coffee that was more like a hot milkshake than a cappuccino.
McDonalds win blind tasting of their coffee vs other chains, regularly.
The theory is that given reputation and expectations, they try harder. Starfucks & Prat can put any old swill in a cup and sell it.
Starbucks is the worst. Burnt, bitter stuff which apparently is designed for those American 3 gallon buckets of hot milk they drink over there.
But as noted last week, Costa - long the awfulest of all - actually served me a very decent cup of coffee at KX station.
Did you report the Costa franchise to corporate for unauthorised modification of the product?
Starbucks is overpriced poison.
I think Nero's is the best of the high street chains. Although, as ever, you are better off finding a small business that prides itself on sourcing its coffee
The big chains are all expensive but generally OK though usually too hot. A bad cup is not down to the coffee IMO. Their high turnovers means that, at least, the beans are unlikely to be stale. A bad cup is more likely down to the maker I'd say, particularly a tendency to overheat the milk. In some other countries a further challenge is UHT milk - which is disgusting.
Probably part of the coffee problem is due to people asking for exotic variants with which they are unfamiliar and then not liking the slightly odd flavour, whereas McDonalds basically sells a cup of coffee. You see the same with tea where Earl Grey and lapsang souchong sound posh but are acquired tastes.
Drinking it without milk helps. I gave up on milk-in-coffee many years ago and appreciate coffee much more.
I follow the Italian practice of drinking milky coffee in the morning and espresso later in the day. One plague is coffee houses serving semi-skimmed as standard (and not declaring it) but often not having full-fat available
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
On topic, being young and right wing was never an issue for me wrt dating. Most girls didn't care very much about it and as long as you're not a dickhead on the first date and start espousing the dangers of high tax or quoting Milton Friedman etc... then it doesn't even come into conversation. My wife was an active member of the Swiss leftist party when we met, we're married with two kids now. People who let politics prevent them from forming personal relationships are sad and deserve to be lonely.
Mrs U is quite a bit to the left of me on many issues, never been an problem and makes for some interesting conversations. Not sure we have ever voted the same at a GE.
I am not sure its a right / left thing with young men dating. I think a big issue with today's dating scene is we know most of dating has gone onto apps like Tinder and a very small percentage of guys get all the dates, and complementary to that, the ability of young men to talk to women in real life and judge it right so that they don't come off as a creep or vice versa be engaging is much reduced, which I think leads a proportion down the Andrew Tate rabbit hole.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Much easier to tell a compelling story if you're prepared to make stuff up.
Which Trumpites are. Eg cat-eating.
Since we're now informed that Trump voters are some of the sharper tools in the box, one has to assume they have information about the incidence of Haitian cat eating but still prefer to believe the myth. I suppose cultists is the correct term.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
You are reading too many opinion polls, suggest we all take a week out from them. Most are giving out confusing messages, best just ignore them, there r will be surprises on Election day due to shifting demographics in individual states.
I find it hard to take US election polling at all seriously. People routinely talk about a pollster being Democrat or GOP aligned. In the UK we consider some pollsters more accurate than others, so they have methodological issues, but nobody thinks pollsters in the UK have a political leaning. If I thought a pollster has any political leaning I would distrust all of their polling, in the US that would seem to eliminate most polling.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
There is also a practical element. When you get out into the wilds of America, the government ain't coming to help. In some rural towns, there is one sheriff, a volunteer fire service, etc. The government doesn't even really know you exist in places like West Viriginan hollers.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
Yep. There definitely seems to be an instinct to just pull down the pillars and reduce everything to rubble. Not really a conservative instinct. But then Trump, while he may be "right-wing" is no more a conservative than, say, Rupert Murdoch. Both members of a billionaire's club, along with Musk, which seems to believe the planet just exists for their convenience, amusement and exploitation.
A cogent case against Trump, from a conservative perspective, here:
Apparently this awful security queue for the National Gallery is now permanent. I used to just walk up the steps and in. Just Stop Oil madness means this is just the future we are a living in.
God, some political hacks are such drama queens. We were removing litter bins from London stations in the early 90s because the IRA were putting bombs in them, and holding football fans behind huge wire cages until Hillsborough. That wasn’t exactly high trust.
The same hacks will be all for expanding stop and search, so long as it doesn’t affect them personally.
Though Downing Street is still fenced off, with armed guards, despite this having originally been a temporary precaution against the IRA.
The fact this has been the case for decades rather demonstrates the point that London wasn’t some security-free paradise right up until the point just stop oil arrived.
Another piece of security theatre to join the rest, though.
Museums used to be wander in, wander out.
How long before its libraries etc? How long before it is something you really care about?
Museums are something I do really care about. Our borders with the EU are another thing I care about - they used to be virtually wander in, wander out too. I think you’re misreading my point. It’s the golden age nonsense from hacks who don’t like JSO, who are trying to argue that this particular direct action group have transformed Britain from a freedom loving paradise to a security police state.
Just for now, stores remain 'wander in, wander out' but the current spate of aggravated shop-lifting may put an end to that. I recall a corner store in a 'nice' part of Washington DC with an armed security guard on the door, paying close attention to everyone entering and leaving. That was in 1978.
Back in the early 1990s, I knew a lady who worked at a school in Stepney Green. It was apparently the first state school to have 'security' measures for staff and pupils. ISTR it caused a little media comment at the time.
Annoyingly, I cannot remember the school's name, or what the 'controversial' measures were. I'm guessing they were things we would not blink twice at nowdays.
Dunblane, March 1996, changed everything about schools. Until then, especially in smaller towns and villages, they were just open sites with open entrances and doors. Parents, visitors etc wandered in and out at will.
The last time I visited a small school (where everyone knew me) for a known, professional purpose when I was never interacting with any child the following occurred.
I rang a buzzer and was escorted in after the door was unlocked. I stood in a designated space where I was photographed The photo was turned into an identity card This was lanyarded onto me I signed myself in I was escorted to where I needed to be At the end I was escorted off the premises after removal of lanyard and after signing myself out.
All this involved people who had known me for years, and I was in the school at their invitation.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
Surely as Kinnock is not (?yet) a Cabinet Minister, he is therefore not aware of the details of the Budget, except so far as they affect his own Department.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Much easier to tell a compelling story if you're prepared to make stuff up.
Which Trumpites are. Eg cat-eating.
Since we're now informed that Trump voters are some of the sharper tools in the box, one has to assume they have information about the incidence of Haitian cat eating but still prefer to believe the myth. I suppose cultists is the correct term.
Check your keyboard is working properly, there may be an issue with n sometimes coming out as l.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
There is also a practical element. When you get out into the wilds of America, the government ain't coming to help. In some rural towns, there is one sheriff, a volunteer fire service, etc. The government doesn't even really know you exist in places like West Viriginan hollers.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
Kinnock was on R4 Today this morning. He has his father's technique of avoiding answering by rapid and sustained volubility, which he does very well.
Astonishingly, and I think mistakenly, he refused to answer at all this question: 'Will all our medical records be accessible to 1.5 million people who work in the NHS.'
It was amazing that he could not just say "No". But he didn't. Nor anything approaching it.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
An interesting observation in the context of today's announcement about council houses. Forty years ago a friend argued that the accumulated stock of council houses was a huge liability due to ongoing maintenance costs, and the nation's balance sheet could be improved simply by handing them over to the tenants. Then Margaret Thatcher had an even better idea and sold them instead. Now the government is proposing to change the rules so the new houses it proposes to build would be shown on the books as a net asset at construction cost. But they're not really assets at all if future governments inherit an open-ended responsibility for their repair and maintenance, particularly if tenants neglect their upkeep either wilfully or through poverty.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
There is also a practical element. When you get out into the wilds of America, the government ain't coming to help. In some rural towns, there is one sheriff, a volunteer fire service, etc. The government doesn't even really know you exist in places like West Viriginan hollers.
Was the internet that cost billions of dollars and delivered like 10 people high speed internet part of that programme?
Also you are sort of missing the point, the people who live in these communities don't want the man from the government. Its practical outcome of their idealogical stance and deeply suspicious of federal government claiming they will help.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
There’s an awful lot of voter churn at this election, as both parties have tried appealing to certain demographics in ways that have alienated others at the same time. Some groups are focusing on economic issues, and others on social issues compared to 2020.
I still think it’s too close to call in many of the swing States, although the crap polling that keeps telling us it’s definitely 50/50 or 51/49 in either direction, isn’t helping much.
Today is the final day for voter registration in Pennsylvania, likely to be the deciding State. Both sides’ national campaigns have been attending numerous events there over the weekend.
FWIW, and I am biased because I have been stating this for a while, I think Trump is probably going to win those more easily than the general consensus thinks and really for the following reasons:
1. He leads on the issues most important to voters; 2. Democratic senators have started to put out messages claiming they have backed Trump's policies and down-ballot Democrats do not want to appear next to Harris - the classic sign they think Harris is struggling; 3. Harris and Walz are not growing into the race, on the contrary they are going backwards when it comes to handling the issues; 4. The current over-emphasis on Black men - who, yes, matter in swing states risks off putting groups who see this as favouritism, particularly Hispanic voters. 5. There are some clear signs (look at the New York Intelligencer article) that Trump's campaign is having success in putting off suburban women from voting Harris with the emphasis on transgender athletes in women's sports.
At the moment, I would say the most likely numbers are 312/306 - 226 / 232 Trump / Harris in the EV.
One other state to look out for - New Mexico. Not much polling but the last one according to 538.com had Harris with only a 4 point lead (49-45). Given the demographics / geographic position, that looks at risk.
Apparently this awful security queue for the National Gallery is now permanent. I used to just walk up the steps and in. Just Stop Oil madness means this is just the future we are a living in.
Sad. My London days ended 40 years ago and one of the many delights was to be able to go into the National Gallery regularly and often just for a short time at some point in a working day.
It is really sad if it is true
As you say, one of the great joys of london is - was - just nipping into the national gallery to look at maybe one single painting for five minutes - the Rokeby Venus or Whisteljacket
If that is taken away from us by Tarquins with paint
Fuck em
No actual statement from the NG, I see, just what some person on Twitter imagines to be the case.
Blockbuster exhibition? And some other reason for security? Museums and galleries have always varied their security.
I would be genuinely interested in which art gallery/exhibition PBers last attended. I assume from their regular fits of the vapours over security glass & soup that they’re enthusiastic art lovers.
The Burrell (Glasgow) is brilliant since its re-opening in 2022, and it was pretty damm good before that.
Get a free brilliant guided tour, although it will probably overrun its alloted time.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
It was obvious that is how they see it, during the GE campaign, Starmer was clearer on a defining a woman than a working person.
Taken at its broadest interpretation it might be literally impossible to "not increase taxes on working people" when there is bound to be at least one working person somewhere paying any particular tax.
What Starmer/Reeves are going to claim is that raising employer NI is not a tax on working people, extending fiscal drag by not raising future allowances is not a tax on working people, removing some allowances is not a tax on working people, and so on. They can say what they want, but working people will pay a lot more tax.
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
Yep. There definitely seems to be an instinct to just pull down the pillars and reduce everything to rubble. Not really a conservative instinct. But then Trump, while he may be "right-wing" is no more a conservative than, say, Rupert Murdoch. Both members of a billionaire's club, along with Musk, which seems to believe the planet just exists for their convenience, amusement and exploitation.
A cogent case against Trump, from a conservative perspective, here:
We talk about how the Democrats don't have a good story to tell, but the small-c-conservative strand on the right is pretty much dead Stateside and not in a good way in Europe.
Consider this list:
List of UK politicians/political figures who have declared support for Trump: • Boris Johnson • Liz Truss • Suella Braverman • Andrea Jenkyns • Jacob Rees-Mogg • Nigel Farage • Lord Frost • John Hayes • Robert Jenrick • Sammy Wilson • Ian Paisley • Jake Berry • Kwasi Kwarteng • Tim Montgomerie
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
Kinnock was on R4 Today this morning. He has his father's technique of avoiding answering by rapid and sustained volubility, which he does very well.
Astonishingly, and I think mistakenly, he refused to answer at all this question: 'Will all our medical records be accessible to 1.5 million people who work in the NHS.'
It was amazing that he could not just say "No". But he didn't. Nor anything approaching it.
What was he hiding?
He is probably hiding that he has no idea what Wes Streeting has said.
The ‘raining cats and dogs’ quote is especially magnificent.
Its all imported from the US, where stuff like homeless = unhoused, and remember the absolute outrage that Biden used the term illegal immigrant, when talking about the case of, checks notes, an illegal immigrant.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Much easier to tell a compelling story if you're prepared to make stuff up.
In the US, the Process State has got further along than us, in many areas. So you have a weird mix of total free for-all lack of regulation + plus insane permitting and sign off required by multiple state and federal regulatory bodies.
Political corruption has been legalised. Where Trump transgresses, is in not doing the dance. Every Senator, Governor etc can achieve 8 digit wealth through public office. Legally. Foreign money buys access, legally.
Public projects are all pyramids of companies doing the work. At each level, profit is extracted. And each company in the pyramid donates to the politicians. Who pour money in the top - think one of those pyramids of champagne glasses that epitomises conspicuous consumption in old films.
So spending grows and you get less and less for it.
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
Brain storming being offensive to people with epilepsy is another...
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
There is also a practical element. When you get out into the wilds of America, the government ain't coming to help. In some rural towns, there is one sheriff, a volunteer fire service, etc. The government doesn't even really know you exist in places like West Viriginan hollers.
Was the internet that cost billions of dollars and delivered like 10 people high speed internet part of that programme?
Also you are sort of missing the point, the people who live in these communities don't want the man from the government. Its practical outcome of their idealogical stance and deeply suspicious of federal government claiming they will help.
As we know from Vance's somewhat tendentious account of rural life, they're quite prepared to accept welfare.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
Yep. There definitely seems to be an instinct to just pull down the pillars and reduce everything to rubble. Not really a conservative instinct. But then Trump, while he may be "right-wing" is no more a conservative than, say, Rupert Murdoch. Both members of a billionaire's club, along with Musk, which seems to believe the planet just exists for their convenience, amusement and exploitation.
A cogent case against Trump, from a conservative perspective, here:
We talk about how the Democrats don't have a good story to tell, but the small-c-conservative strand on the right is pretty much dead Stateside and not in a good way in Europe.
Consider this list:
List of UK politicians/political figures who have declared support for Trump: • Boris Johnson • Liz Truss • Suella Braverman • Andrea Jenkyns • Jacob Rees-Mogg • Nigel Farage • Lord Frost • John Hayes • Robert Jenrick • Sammy Wilson • Ian Paisley • Jake Berry • Kwasi Kwarteng • Tim Montgomerie
Badenoch of course endorsed Ron DeSantis rather than Trump in the GOP primaries and got an endorsement from him back in the Tory leadership contest. Trump backer Jenrick might be encouraged by the fact Trump beat DeSantis in the Iowa caucuses comfortably and then DeSantis withdrew and endorsed Trump
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
'A minister has left the door open to a Budget tax raid on high earners.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
Someone who judges you on your politics is in all likelihood a waste of time/effort in my view, However I have no problem with them finding each other and achieving happiness together. The effort by the democrats to try and weaponize this reveals a kind of immaturity and shallowness that may round up a few people but will repel just as many if not more.
Most of those sound like demands I would studiously ignore, as they are basically descriptive and the offence is imo performative in some cases. I like the added amusing grunting from Toby Young.
Though I came across an interesting one in the wild, yesterday. An international, mainly I think Usonian, audience, getting cross about the the use of the phrase "Dumb Waiter" to describe a food lift/food prep area:
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
Trump edging ahead of Harris in the electoral-vote.com graph. Worrying times. My gut feeling is still 50/50 but also that the best betting opportunities are likely to be on the night. Also the worst ones too... and will I be fast/brave enough to discern which is which?
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
There is also a practical element. When you get out into the wilds of America, the government ain't coming to help. In some rural towns, there is one sheriff, a volunteer fire service, etc. The government doesn't even really know you exist in places like West Viriginan hollers.
Was the internet that cost billions of dollars and delivered like 10 people high speed internet part of that programme?
Also you are sort of missing the point, the people who live in these communities don't want the man from the government. Its practical outcome of their idealogical stance and deeply suspicious of federal government claiming they will help.
As we know from Vance's somewhat tendentious account of rural life, they're quite prepared to accept welfare.
But that's often the case, isn't it? I'm not a pensioner (yet...), and so why should pensioners be getting more money? I'm not ill, so why should health be getting so much money?
But I've got kids in school, so I want more money for schools. And I'm unemployed, so I want unemployment and housing benefits. Don't you dare reduce those!
Government spending they personally need is good. Government spending they personally don't need is waste.
Which is another reason we should not be letting billionaires define what is needed, and what is waste.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
There is also a practical element. When you get out into the wilds of America, the government ain't coming to help. In some rural towns, there is one sheriff, a volunteer fire service, etc. The government doesn't even really know you exist in places like West Viriginan hollers.
Was the internet that cost billions of dollars and delivered like 10 people high speed internet part of that programme?
Also you are sort of missing the point, the people who live in these communities don't want the man from the government. Its practical outcome of their idealogical stance and deeply suspicious of federal government claiming they will help.
As we know from Vance's somewhat tendentious account of rural life, they're quite prepared to accept welfare.
A proportion often linked to drug dependency, which has particularly plagued Aappalachia. Further to the west in the US, I always found people much more strongly anti any government. Again, I presume it is because they forefathers moved to be away from persecution, be it the Armish, or the Morons, or those who moved to live harsh places like Montana.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
An interesting observation in the context of today's announcement about council houses. Forty years ago a friend argued that the accumulated stock of council houses was a huge liability due to ongoing maintenance costs, and the nation's balance sheet could be improved simply by handing them over to the tenants. Then Margaret Thatcher had an even better idea and sold them instead. Now the government is proposing to change the rules so the new houses it proposes to build would be shown on the books as a net asset at construction cost. But they're not really assets at all if future governments inherit an open-ended responsibility for their repair and maintenance, particularly if tenants neglect their upkeep either wilfully or through poverty.
Hmmm. I'd point out that a valuation as an asset is underpinned by the rental income stream. I don't have a number handy for yield.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Much easier to tell a compelling story if you're prepared to make stuff up.
In the US, the Process State has got further along than us, in many areas. So you have a weird mix of total free for-all lack of regulation + plus insane permitting and sign off required by multiple state and federal regulatory bodies.
Political corruption has been legalised. Where Trump transgresses, is in not doing the dance. Every Senator, Governor etc can achieve 8 digit wealth through public office. Legally. Foreign money buys access, legally.
Public projects are all pyramids of companies doing the work. At each level, profit is extracted. And each company in the pyramid donates to the politicians. Who pour money in the top - think one of those pyramids of champagne glasses that epitomises conspicuous consumption in old films.
So spending grows and you get less and less for it.
The $.75bn EV Chargers programme stands out as particularly special. It’s delivered eight operational chargers in three years, characterised by the pyramid of contracts and organisations exactly as you suggest.
What amuses me is that I know a girl who wore a "never kissed a Tory" t-shirt who unwittingly definitely kissed a Tory ;-)
Mwhahahaha.
When I was at university I was seeing a girl whose grandfather was a Labour PM. She was rabidly anti right wing public school chaps (despite being from a v privileged background herself) and she used to hate that she liked me and kept sleeping with me.
It still makes me laugh how many times she would finish with me the next morning and criticise my background then rinse and repeat a few days later.
Donald Trump's support does skew stupid, particularly in the MAGA ranks, you'd need to be a bit stupid yourself not to detect this. However large numbers of people who are not at all stupid will be voting for him. He'd have no chance if this weren't the case. Why is it the case? Because he's the GOP candidate. Much of his vote will come from people who always vote Republican.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
Brain storming being offensive to people with epilepsy is another...
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
We’re only a few weeks away from the annual stories about “Muslims find ‘Christmas’ offensive”.
No they don’t, it’s the educated white liberal wokesters in HR at the council who find ‘Christmas’ offensive, and think you should too.
Apparently this awful security queue for the National Gallery is now permanent. I used to just walk up the steps and in. Just Stop Oil madness means this is just the future we are a living in.
Sad. My London days ended 40 years ago and one of the many delights was to be able to go into the National Gallery regularly and often just for a short time at some point in a working day.
It is really sad if it is true
As you say, one of the great joys of london is - was - just nipping into the national gallery to look at maybe one single painting for five minutes - the Rokeby Venus or Whisteljacket
If that is taken away from us by Tarquins with paint
Fuck em
No actual statement from the NG, I see, just what some person on Twitter imagines to be the case.
Blockbuster exhibition? And some other reason for security? Museums and galleries have always varied their security.
I would be genuinely interested in which art gallery/exhibition PBers last attended. I assume from their regular fits of the vapours over security glass & soup that they’re enthusiastic art lovers.
Last special exhibition: The Shape of Things: Still Life in Britain, at the Pallant, Chichester. (A magical place at all times. I enjoyed just as much at the same time a carefully and beautifully curated exhibition of local art by people with various disabilities. Shame it is 380 miles from where I live).
I think the Still Life exhibition has just closed.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
Donald Trump's support does skew stupid, particularly in the MAGA ranks, you'd need to be a bit stupid yourself not to detect this. However large numbers of people who are not at all stupid will be voting for him. He'd have no chance if this weren't the case. Why is it the case? Because he's the GOP candidate. Much of his vote will come from people who always vote Republican.
The Venn diagram of "people who always vote Republican" regardless of who the candidate is and "stupid" is very nearly a perfect circle
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
Yep. There definitely seems to be an instinct to just pull down the pillars and reduce everything to rubble. Not really a conservative instinct. But then Trump, while he may be "right-wing" is no more a conservative than, say, Rupert Murdoch. Both members of a billionaire's club, along with Musk, which seems to believe the planet just exists for their convenience, amusement and exploitation.
A cogent case against Trump, from a conservative perspective, here:
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
Yep. There definitely seems to be an instinct to just pull down the pillars and reduce everything to rubble. Not really a conservative instinct. But then Trump, while he may be "right-wing" is no more a conservative than, say, Rupert Murdoch. Both members of a billionaire's club, along with Musk, which seems to believe the planet just exists for their convenience, amusement and exploitation.
A cogent case against Trump, from a conservative perspective, here:
We talk about how the Democrats don't have a good story to tell, but the small-c-conservative strand on the right is pretty much dead Stateside and not in a good way in Europe.
Consider this list:
List of UK politicians/political figures who have declared support for Trump: • Boris Johnson • Liz Truss • Suella Braverman • Andrea Jenkyns • Jacob Rees-Mogg • Nigel Farage • Lord Frost • John Hayes • Robert Jenrick • Sammy Wilson • Ian Paisley • Jake Berry • Kwasi Kwarteng • Tim Montgomerie
Badenoch of course endorsed Ron DeSantis rather than Trump in the GOP primaries and got an endorsement from him back in the Tory leadership contest. Trump backer Jenrick might be encouraged by the fact Trump beat DeSantis in the Iowa caucuses comfortably and then DeSantis withdrew and endorsed Trump
For me the most interesting names on that list are Jake Berry and Tim Montgomerie. I think I would expect to see most of the others there, but it's quite the shift over say a decade for Montgomerie.
What amuses me is that I know a girl who wore a "never kissed a Tory" t-shirt who unwittingly definitely kissed a Tory ;-)
Mwhahahaha.
When I was at university I was seeing a girl whose grandfather was a Labour PM. She was rabidly anti right wing public school chaps (despite being from a v privileged background herself) and she used to hate that she liked me and kept sleeping with me.
It still makes me laugh how many times she would finish with me the next morning and criticise my background then rinse and repeat a few days later.
My favourites are the loud strident feminists who, secretly, want to be spanked and tied up. Luckily, I am willing to do that
Apparently this awful security queue for the National Gallery is now permanent. I used to just walk up the steps and in. Just Stop Oil madness means this is just the future we are a living in.
God, some political hacks are such drama queens. We were removing litter bins from London stations in the early 90s because the IRA were putting bombs in them, and holding football fans behind huge wire cages until Hillsborough. That wasn’t exactly high trust.
The same hacks will be all for expanding stop and search, so long as it doesn’t affect them personally.
Though Downing Street is still fenced off, with armed guards, despite this having originally been a temporary precaution against the IRA.
The public need to have access to Downing Street... so they can complain about what pictures have been taken down!
Donald Trump's support does skew stupid, particularly in the MAGA ranks, you'd need to be a bit stupid yourself not to detect this. However large numbers of people who are not at all stupid will be voting for him. He'd have no chance if this weren't the case. Why is it the case? Because he's the GOP candidate. Much of his vote will come from people who always vote Republican.
The Venn diagram of "people who always vote Republican" regardless of who the candidate is and "stupid" is very nearly a perfect circle
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
Brain storming being offensive to people with epilepsy is another...
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
Yes my own introduction to this kind of garbage came very early.
When I was at school, there was a (permanently jolly) black dinner lady who often wore a golliwog apron which even then the p.c. movement was trying to ban as offensive.
She obviously didn't know that she was supposed to have died, or at least fainted, from the offense it caused her.
For that matter I've never met a non-white person who cares if white people wear black makeup at fancy dress parties, nor do I know non-Europeans who care if Europeans wear their traditional dress occasionally.
It's all a bizarre manifestation of liberal white guilt and would be ridiculous if it weren't so widespread amongst idiots in power.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
Is there any general set of reasons for the regular massive cost increase of public projects as they go along?
Two particular puzzles: Isn't there considerable expertise available in accurately costing things?
And isn't it politically cleverer to slightly overestimate so that tax payer funded things often turn out 'under budget'.
It’s politically easier to have the project approved with a much lower number than the actual cost, and then to up the price later once serious amounts of money have already been spent.
Compounding this is government of ever-changing faces in management and ministerial roles, all of whom want to keep changing he scope of the project even when it’s well under way.
There is no reward for bringing a project in under budget.
I remember the Wembley stadium redevelopment, where the FA screwed the contractor to the ground and let them deal with anything unexpected that came up during construction.
The primary contractor underestimated the time and cost involved in the build, and the FA were very careful not to creep the scope even as the project ran late.
That should be a model for public sector building procurement, even if it results in a different set of problems.
It's sorta like the RAAC issue. When you design a building or structure, you build it to a design life. Building it to last much longer than that design life can be very expensive, so you tend to design 'down' to that life. (*)
Imagine a structure that has a 60-year design life (quite long for a building...).
But what if the structure needs unplanned works after 40 years? Who pays? One approach is to say the client (in this case the government) takes on that cost, which is a risk. Another approach is to say the contractor needs to take on that risk. And as the contractor may not still be around in 40 years, it makes the structure or building stronger than it needs to be, just in case, and insures it against future costs.
As I said, the Cambridge Misguided bus is an example of where problems within a few years of opening led to mahoosively expensive and long court battles.
I don't know what the answer is; place more risk on the contractor, the client takes more risk, or we pay lawyers to sort it out later.
(*) That does not mean it will automatically need replacing or renewing after that time; just that is the time after which you can expect to need to spend lots of money on it.
Ultimately the client always pays- either by fixing things when they break or upfront by paying more for the initial project.
The answer is never to pay the lawyers (except for games of bugger thy neighbour), because the money could be used for something useful.
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
Roofs are something where you need to spend considerable amounts on well before 50 years, if you do not want leaks (here in the UK). My dad reckoned on significant maintenance after 25-30 years (new flashing, mortar under ridge tiles, replacing broken tiles etc), and perhaps total replacement after 50.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
As part of an extension project we've had our whole roof lifted, re-felted, battened and the tiles replaced (and new ones added). Looks great and should do for the next 25-30 years. We also had all the windows replaced, so 20 years + with those. New boiler etc.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
One of the key skills in buying investment properties is to spot the ones with sound roofs yourself, without needing a surveyor.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
Most of those sound like demands I would studiously ignore, as they are basically descriptive and the offence is imo performative in some cases. I like the added amusing grunting from Toby Young.
Though I came across an interesting one in the wild, yesterday. An international, mainly I think Usonian, audience, getting cross about the the use of the phrase "Dumb Waiter" to describe a food lift/food prep area:
His McDonald’s stunt was clever and effective. The Trump campaign has reduced the Dems to spluttering “but but but the McDonalds was actually closed and the security services vetted everyone” - well yeah seeing as he’s a presidential candidate who was nearly killed by two different assassins in the last few weeks
Yeah. Fair comment. Unfortunately.
I really have a sense of foreboding. Horrifically Trump may win.
What is so maddening is that the Dems have, after the experience with Hillary, ended up giving us Kamala. FFS.
All, the same, fingers crossed. But it really shouldn't be like this.
Yes, if Trump wins, the ululating from righties blaming libs for a moral defective being elected under the righty banner will be deafening.
Yes, it's as self-servingly dishonest as everything else recently emanating from that side of US politics.
I prefer this take.
I've always disagreed with the "Democrats are fumbling the election" angle. It's not their race to fumble.
And it's Trump's *third time*. Voters have agency, and it's a conscious choice they're making. They've seen his presidency. If he wins, it would mean they want it back. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1848181289393721465
They've also seen him trash the democratic process and the constitution in a concerted attempt to cling to power after being voted out.
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
Brain storming being offensive to people with epilepsy is another...
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
We’re only a few weeks away from the annual stories about “Muslims find ‘Christmas’ offensive”.
No they don’t, it’s the educated white liberal wokesters in HR at the council who find ‘Christmas’ offensive, and think you should too.
The first time I went to 90% Buddhist Thailand for Christmas I was surprised by the number of Christmas displays in the shops. Admittedly that was in an area with quite a few tourists and ex-pats, particularly the latter, but still .....
As for stupid Americans vote Trump. The educational attainment in the US is very poor among a significant proportion of the population, so it isn't exactly hard to find "stupid" voting for both parties.
What Trump has managed to do is flip a significant number of blue collar workers who traditionally would have voted Democrat. But repulses your soccer mom in the suburbs in a way that other Republicans do not.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
"In part and in places" crime has dropped; it rose under Trump. "Defund police" was never even considered by this administration, and is not a thing. It was a slogan - prompted by similar disillusion with the corruption of the police that was experience in the UK.
IMO, "Incredibly the Democrats are even worse" is a social rationalisation for choosing Trump. If he's elected, I think it says rather more about the US electorate than this administration.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
There’s an awful lot of voter churn at this election, as both parties have tried appealing to certain demographics in ways that have alienated others at the same time. Some groups are focusing on economic issues, and others on social issues compared to 2020.
I still think it’s too close to call in many of the swing States, although the crap polling that keeps telling us it’s definitely 50/50 or 51/49 in either direction, isn’t helping much.
Today is the final day for voter registration in Pennsylvania, likely to be the deciding State. Both sides’ national campaigns have been attending numerous events there over the weekend.
Do you have any polling showing churn (vs 2020 vote)? My understanding was that most voters when it comes to US presidential elections are set in their ways.
Look luv, you can come up with these old school phrases as much as you like, it might be mental but it will just fall on deaf ears. It will be raining cats and dogs before they fix this, it works much better in third world countries.
Brain storming being offensive to people with epilepsy is another...
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
We’re only a few weeks away from the annual stories about “Muslims find ‘Christmas’ offensive”.
No they don’t, it’s the educated white liberal wokesters in HR at the council who find ‘Christmas’ offensive, and think you should too.
The first time I went to 90% Buddhist Thailand for Christmas I was surprised by the number of Christmas displays in the shops. Admittedly that was in an area with quite a few tourists and ex-pats, particularly the latter, but still .....
Lots of non-Christian countries "celebrate" Christmas. Leon is in Japan, they love a bit of Christmas there, with sold out KFC family bucket and special strawberry cake.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Ok, if this is even just an exagerrated version of events Elon does for once have a point here.
Elon Musk tonight on overregulation:
"I got a bunch of nutty stories. SpaceX had to do this study to see if Starship would hit a shark. And I'm like... it's a big ocean. There are a lot of sharks! It’s not impossible, but it’s very unlikely. So we said, 'Fine, we’ll do the analysis. Can you give us the shark data?' They were like, 'No, we can’t give you the shark data.'
Well, then, okay, we’re in a bit of a quandary. How do we solve this shark probability issue? They said, 'Well, we could give it to our western division, but we don’t trust them.' I’m like, 'Am I in a comedy sketch here?!'
Eventually, we got the data and could run the analysis to say, 'Yeah, the sharks are going to be fine.' But they wouldn’t let us proceed with the launch until we did this crazy shark analysis.
Then we thought, 'Okay, now we’re done.' But then they said, 'What about whales?'
When you look at a picture of the Pacific, what percent of the surface area do you see as whale? If Starship did hit a whale, honestly, it’s like the whale had it coming, cause the odds are... so low. It’s like Final Destination: Whale Edition.
What amuses me is that I know a girl who wore a "never kissed a Tory" t-shirt who unwittingly definitely kissed a Tory ;-)
Mwhahahaha.
When I was at university I was seeing a girl whose grandfather was a Labour PM. She was rabidly anti right wing public school chaps (despite being from a v privileged background herself) and she used to hate that she liked me and kept sleeping with me.
It still makes me laugh how many times she would finish with me the next morning and criticise my background then rinse and repeat a few days later.
My favourites are the loud strident feminists who, secretly, want to be spanked and tied up. Luckily, I am willing to do that
...are you aware you said that out loud rather than just thought it?...
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
A lot of Americans are anarchists at heart and oppose the very idea of government. That's why they or their ancestors left wherever they came from for a better life in the Land of the Free. Government by Trump may not be perfect but for them it's a lot better than the alternative.
There is also a practical element. When you get out into the wilds of America, the government ain't coming to help. In some rural towns, there is one sheriff, a volunteer fire service, etc. The government doesn't even really know you exist in places like West Viriginan hollers.
Was the internet that cost billions of dollars and delivered like 10 people high speed internet part of that programme?
Also you are sort of missing the point, the people who live in these communities don't want the man from the government. Its practical outcome of their idealogical stance and deeply suspicious of federal government claiming they will help.
As we know from Vance's somewhat tendentious account of rural life, they're quite prepared to accept welfare.
A proportion often linked to drug dependency, which has particularly plagued Aappalachia. Further to the west in the US, I always found people much more strongly anti any government. Again, I presume it is because they forefathers moved to be away from persecution, be it the Armish, or the Morons, or those who moved to live harsh places like Montana.
It's true that the Mormons moved west because people kept calling them morons.
Are we still expecting 7p on Fuel duty - so an overnight 8.4p rise in the price of petrol?
I can't quite get my head around how low Labour could poll if they did that - must be kite flying to make the alternative seem kind.
I suspect it is very likely. Tax rises are never popular hence should be done in the first year with a big majority. We have forgotten what sensible government looks like.
Comments
I still think it’s too close to call in many of the swing States, although the crap polling that keeps telling us it’s definitely 50/50 or 51/49 in either direction, isn’t helping much.
Today is the final day for voter registration in Pennsylvania, likely to be the deciding State. Both sides’ national campaigns have been attending numerous events there over the weekend.
- Kamala ate her lunch early and cleared her plate
- Trump ate his lunch more slowly and is still clearing his
- We don't know who has more food but we know that it's close
Well, world-breaking analysis from me there. And you wonder why you pay me so much.More interesting for me than the recent Tate Kandinsky and the Blue Rider exhibiton (which was saved by the Franz Marc paintings even though they were displayed in an idiotic position).
The Right can pull all the traditional cords of belonging from before even the modern era, but the left hasn't found anything to replace this common vision.
Too many Americans will, in the end, shy away from Trump. Personally I would shy away from him
But I can also understand why sane, smart Americans can look at the state of their country, and the state of the Woke Democrats, and decide: yep, Trump is a risk but the Democrats are an even crazier risk. Which is why this is going down to the wire
Mwhahahaha.
"Beyond the narrow political stakes I think one reason Trump voting is a turnoff is that it’s ecologically associated with low levels of education & occupational status, social isolation, and other qualities that per Phil’s point are undesirable."
https://nitter.poast.org/mattyglesias/status/1847307951985381529
Since the soup throwing seems to be mainly an English phenomenon and afaik hasn’t affected access to Scottish galleries, I assume your vapours are selflessly on behalf of your southern fellow cruisers.
Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
AIUI 50 years is the normal design life for a typical house. It's all quite well specified:
https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Design_life
One example of a knotty issue is the up front payements required for 40 or 60 or 100 years of maintenance (ie the Design Life) when a Council adopts a facility or structure. That's one reason why housing estates stay private or with private maintenance - it comes out of the pockets of the new owners a year at a time, rather than out of the sale revenue making the new house prices uncompetitive and/or depressing developer profits.
I am not sure its a right / left thing with young men dating. I think a big issue with today's dating scene is we know most of dating has gone onto apps like Tinder and a very small percentage of guys get all the dates, and complementary to that, the ability of young men to talk to women in real life and judge it right so that they don't come off as a creep or vice versa be engaging is much reduced, which I think leads a proportion down the Andrew Tate rabbit hole.
Labour promised in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on “working people”.
But Stephen Kinnock, the care minister, would not say this morning if that label would cover people who earn six figures as he failed to answer the question six times.
It comes after Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, warned high earners yesterday not to expect help at the Budget as he suggested it would be focused on “people who are on lower or middle income”.
Mr Kinnock was asked during an interview on Sky News if people who earn more than £100,000 were classed as a “working person”.
He replied: “The Chancellor is going to set all of this out on October 30. Look, our manifesto made it absolutely clear that we will not be raising National Insurance, income tax or VAT on working people and that is the pledge that will be delivered.”
Asked to define “working people”, he said: “The Chancellor will make that absolutely clear on October 30.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/21/politics-latest-news-keir-starmer-nhs-wes-streeting-budget/
'Defund police' isn't a thing.
The cities aren't 'collapsing'.
The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas.
I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
A cogent case against Trump, from a conservative perspective, here:
https://conservativehome.com/2024/10/21/david-gauke-why-conservatives-should-have-no-truck-with-trump/
So "fuckatory week" is just an artefact of The Thick of It (iirc), then?
The last time I visited a small school (where everyone knew me) for a known, professional purpose when I was never interacting with any child the following occurred.
I rang a buzzer and was escorted in after the door was unlocked.
I stood in a designated space where I was photographed
The photo was turned into an identity card
This was lanyarded onto me
I signed myself in
I was escorted to where I needed to be
At the end I was escorted off the premises after removal of lanyard and after signing myself out.
All this involved people who had known me for years, and I was in the school at their invitation.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/community-strategies-group/rural-in-the-american-rescue-plan/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/21/saying-millennials-is-offensive-civil-service-told/
I think the phraseology of "tax raid" is interesting; it's like "rogue ... XYZ" as a framing.
It looks a but fishing to me, as it is a claim built on an absence of evidence. I'll listen to the interview, though.
My speculation is that refusing detail on £100k-ers means that the 66% tax rate band will be addressed, which I think all of us here would like.
I didn't realise the Telegraph Live Blog had a public comments section, which is interesting.
Astonishingly, and I think mistakenly, he refused to answer at all this question: 'Will all our medical records be accessible to 1.5 million people who work in the NHS.'
It was amazing that he could not just say "No". But he didn't. Nor anything approaching it.
What was he hiding?
Also you are sort of missing the point, the people who live in these communities don't want the man from the government. Its practical outcome of their idealogical stance and deeply suspicious of federal government claiming they will help.
1. He leads on the issues most important to voters;
2. Democratic senators have started to put out messages claiming they have backed Trump's policies and down-ballot Democrats do not want to appear next to Harris - the classic sign they think Harris is struggling;
3. Harris and Walz are not growing into the race, on the contrary they are going backwards when it comes to handling the issues;
4. The current over-emphasis on Black men - who, yes, matter in swing states risks off putting groups who see this as favouritism, particularly Hispanic voters.
5. There are some clear signs (look at the New York Intelligencer article) that Trump's campaign is having success in putting off suburban women from voting Harris with the emphasis on transgender athletes in women's sports.
At the moment, I would say the most likely numbers are 312/306 - 226 / 232 Trump / Harris in the EV.
One other state to look out for - New Mexico. Not much polling but the last one according to 538.com had Harris with only a 4 point lead (49-45). Given the demographics / geographic position, that looks at risk.
Priorities.
Get a free brilliant guided tour, although it will probably overrun its alloted time.
If you get Morna you are in for a real treat.
Extra Bonus Quote of the Day
“I’ve got no cognitive problem. I have no cognitive… There’s no cognitive problem… Got no cognitive.”
— Donald Trump, at a Pennsylvania rally.
Flat rooves require significant maintenance every 10-15 years.
From what I've seen that's a reasonable rule of thumb.
What Starmer/Reeves are going to claim is that raising employer NI is not a tax on working people, extending fiscal drag by not raising future allowances is not a tax on working people, removing some allowances is not a tax on working people, and so on. They can say what they want, but working people will pay a lot more tax.
Consider this list:
List of UK politicians/political figures who have declared support for Trump:
• Boris Johnson
• Liz Truss
• Suella Braverman
• Andrea Jenkyns
• Jacob Rees-Mogg
• Nigel Farage
• Lord Frost
• John Hayes
• Robert Jenrick
• Sammy Wilson
• Ian Paisley
• Jake Berry
• Kwasi Kwarteng
• Tim Montgomerie
https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3l6z47loiss2z
Tomorrow might not belong to them, but... blimey.
Political corruption has been legalised. Where Trump transgresses, is in not doing the dance. Every Senator, Governor etc can achieve 8 digit wealth through public office. Legally. Foreign money buys access, legally.
Public projects are all pyramids of companies doing the work. At each level, profit is extracted. And each company in the pyramid donates to the politicians. Who pour money in the top - think one of those pyramids of champagne glasses that epitomises conspicuous consumption in old films.
So spending grows and you get less and less for it.
The thing is when you actually talk to people who are supposed offended by this, 99% aren't, never even entered their head it might be.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/06/ron-desantis-backs-kemi-badenoch-for-tory-leader/
back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
Someone who judges you on your politics is in all likelihood a waste of time/effort in my view, However I have no problem with them finding each other and achieving happiness together.
The effort by the democrats to try and weaponize this reveals a kind of immaturity and shallowness that may round up a few people but will repel just as many if not more.
https://archive.ph/fxoqv
Most of those sound like demands I would studiously ignore, as they are basically descriptive and the offence is imo performative in some cases. I like the added amusing grunting from Toby Young.
Though I came across an interesting one in the wild, yesterday. An international, mainly I think Usonian, audience, getting cross about the the use of the phrase "Dumb Waiter" to describe a food lift/food prep area:
https://youtu.be/mEhm4I5w78E?t=84
Defund police was definitely a thing
You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots
You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show
Immigration is a disaster
Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck
Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
My gut feeling is still 50/50 but also that the best betting opportunities are likely to be on the night. Also the worst ones too... and will I be fast/brave enough to discern which is which?
But I've got kids in school, so I want more money for schools. And I'm unemployed, so I want unemployment and housing benefits. Don't you dare reduce those!
Government spending they personally need is good. Government spending they personally don't need is waste.
Which is another reason we should not be letting billionaires define what is needed, and what is waste.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1143375_why-federal-ev-charging-network-is-rolling-out-slowly
It still makes me laugh how many times she would finish with me the next morning and criticise my background then rinse and repeat a few days later.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
No they don’t, it’s the educated white liberal wokesters in HR at the council who find ‘Christmas’ offensive, and think you should too.
I think the Still Life exhibition has just closed.
Hopefully we have bought (very expensively) a good couple of decades worry free...
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
When I was at school, there was a (permanently jolly) black dinner lady who often wore a golliwog apron which even then the p.c. movement was trying to ban as offensive.
She obviously didn't know that she was supposed to have died, or at least fainted, from the offense it caused her.
For that matter I've never met a non-white person who cares if white people wear black makeup at fancy dress parties, nor do I know non-Europeans who care if Europeans wear their traditional dress occasionally.
It's all a bizarre manifestation of liberal white guilt and would be ridiculous if it weren't so widespread amongst idiots in power.
I can't quite get my head around how low Labour could poll if they did that - must be kite flying to make the alternative seem kind.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
I'm surprised Noris McWhirter isn't claiming a threesome at Greenham common.
When a roof needs work, it costs oodles of spend that can be entirely avoided. I got it slightly wrong on one small bungalow - some of the tiles were at life end (concrete late 1960s tiles), and just redoing one section properly (30-40% of the roof) on a bungalow added 10+% to the cost of a high end full renovation.
So, you know ... ???
What Trump has managed to do is flip a significant number of blue collar workers who traditionally would have voted Democrat. But repulses your soccer mom in the suburbs in a way that other Republicans do not.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/10/fbi-quietly-changes-crime-stats-after-falsely-reporting-a-decrease-in-crime/
"Defund police" was never even considered by this administration, and is not a thing. It was a slogan - prompted by similar disillusion with the corruption of the police that was experience in the UK.
IMO, "Incredibly the Democrats are even worse" is a social rationalisation for choosing Trump. If he's elected, I think it says rather more about the US electorate than this administration.
https://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time
Elon Musk tonight on overregulation:
"I got a bunch of nutty stories. SpaceX had to do this study to see if Starship would hit a shark. And I'm like... it's a big ocean. There are a lot of sharks! It’s not impossible, but it’s very unlikely. So we said, 'Fine, we’ll do the analysis. Can you give us the shark data?' They were like, 'No, we can’t give you the shark data.'
Well, then, okay, we’re in a bit of a quandary. How do we solve this shark probability issue? They said, 'Well, we could give it to our western division, but we don’t trust them.' I’m like, 'Am I in a comedy sketch here?!'
Eventually, we got the data and could run the analysis to say, 'Yeah, the sharks are going to be fine.' But they wouldn’t let us proceed with the launch until we did this crazy shark analysis.
Then we thought, 'Okay, now we’re done.' But then they said, 'What about whales?'
When you look at a picture of the Pacific, what percent of the surface area do you see as whale? If Starship did hit a whale, honestly, it’s like the whale had it coming, cause the odds are... so low. It’s like Final Destination: Whale Edition.
And then they said, 'What if the rocket goes underwater, then explodes, and the whales have hearing damage?' This is real!
https://nitter.poast.org/SawyerMerritt/status/1847846282410258876#m