Would have thought "massive racist" would have been essential on the person spec.
That's interesting - I think he's one of the Musk Bros in short trousers who connected a commercial server to the USA's financial systems in violation of law, and stole the database.
If he's out, does that mean he has been cast loose and could potentially be indicted. Chump has a record of cutting his fellow-criminals lose from previous cases when they were no longer any use to him.
He pardoned 1500 Jan 6 supporters. Trump only tends to cut people loose if they turn against him, or he believes they have.
In this case, the kid must know plenty. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a pardon-and-shut-up offer available.
IIRC accessing the tax records of a US citizen is a civil offense and therefore can't be pardoned. $1000 per...
The president can grant pardons for any "Offences against the United States". I'd be surprised if it wasn't covered.
And whether Trump can or can't constitutionally pardon someone, I'd absolutely expect him to claim he can, try it on, and dare someone to come against him - or hold out a worthless offer if even he knew it wasn't on but thought he could bluff the person he was selling it to.
That's the point. It's not an offence against "The United States". It's an offence against Joe Bloggs, citizen, millions of times
Like I say, I think he'd give the pardon anyway, whether or not it's valid. Techlad probably doesn't know the difference.
I'd be surprised if there's not a genuine data-related breach of law that would be covered though. Where it's an offence against an individual, wouldn't the penalty have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the specific circumstances?
Bastard Americans throwing their weight around acting like the world's policeman with their cultural, economic, and military imperialism.
Also fpt
Bastard Americans withdrawing a key instrument of aforementioned imperialism from the globe when the world needs it most and millions will die as a result.
The fantastic thing about Trump is that he is sending all the right people absolutely stark raving mad.
USAID = US imperialism ?
It’s sent you bonkers, certainly.
“The right people” ? Twat.
No, it is correct. A large share of governmental aid is used to further the soft power of the donor, so does have the donors national interest at heart. A lot is spent on domestic purchases too such as US grain and rice etc.
It's the benign and paternalistic end of Imperialism, and one that has now been delivered to rivals such as China.
The US pre Trump spend a lower portion of GDP (around 0.2%) on overseas aid than almost any developed nation. And more on defence spending.
Calling it a “key instrument of imperialism” is obvious bollocks.
I can buy the argument about soft power. I don't buy how eliminating that soft power (rather than perhaps retargeting it better) helps them or us.
They can see what’s actually important once the $60bn swamp has been drained. It’s probably a few hundred million of actual direct foreign aid. Right now they can’t see the wood for the trees.
It's too late.
They couldn't (even if they wanted to, which they didn't) un-destroy the things they have already destroyed - such as all the clinical trials they instructed to be stopped mid-stream denying the volunteers the care they need for the duration in case eg of complications as a result of the experimental medicines.
This is on a walking into an ICU and unplugging all the machines level of vandalism, then thinking you can turn the dead patients back on after they have expired.
Just the clinical trials cancellations are in violation of all the principles and standards of medical ethics. They will never be trusted again, and have put a captive bullet into their soft power.
"Maybe cutting that project was a mistake, but it's too late now..."
I posted an article earlier that outlines what they have done, and how it impacts people taking part in clinical trials which the US had agreed to fund throughout. The action by Rubio, Trump & co is psychopathic. Which is of course how Trump has always rolled.
They went so far as to instruct medical teams doing clinical trials not to do any more work, which left patients with medical devices installed which staff were instructed not to remove, or having treatment stopped half way through which leaves risks of pathogens developing immunity far more likely. One was a trial with a inoculation related to a standard aids treatment, which places the standard treatment at risk of having immunity develop when the trial was stopped in its tracks.
Some of those people are going to actually die. But Trump hates teh tranz, so that's OK. People may remember the science-fiction series "V" from the 1980's, where the alien invaders stigmatised science and scientists as a means of enabling alien control. Trump's doing the same now. He really is a bad man.
He is. You can scale up to evil and stay just the right side of hyperbole. Eventually the fig leaf of "well he campaigned on this" will fall away and there'll be a widespread awakening. "TDS" will be the next pandemic. I hope it comes soon.
'Both Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper are predicted to lose their seats as revealed in a shock poll which forecasts that Labour, Conservatives and Reform UK will be locked in a three-way tie.
A new MRP poll shows Reform at the top with 24 per cent of the vote, with Labour and the Tories just inches behind at 23 per cent each.
The survey of 5,743 British adults, the largest post-Election poll to date, shows that the Conservatives could win 178 seats (up from 121), Labour 174 (down from 412), and Reform UK 175 (a huge rise from only five seats).
The poll conducted national communications agency PLMR and Electoral Calculus predicted that multiple Labour ministers will have to give up their seats.
Rayner will lose her seat of Ashton-under-Lyne to Nigel Farage's party, whilst Home Secretary Cooper is also forecast to give up her seat of Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley to Reform UK.
Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is also forecast to lose Stalybridge and Hyde to Reform, whilst Wes Streeting is expected to lose hold of Ilford North to the Tories.'
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
This morning in Romania via my son. Shows the reach of the Orange One.
I do wonder when we'll get to Peak Trump. He's Buzz Windrup at the moment but sooner or later he'll have his Hartlepool by-election moment. That's just politics.
'Both Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper are predicted to lose their seats as revealed in a shock poll which forecasts that Labour, Conservatives and Reform UK will be locked in a three-way tie.
A new MRP poll shows Reform at the top with 24 per cent of the vote, with Labour and the Tories just inches behind at 23 per cent each.
The survey of 5,743 British adults, the largest post-Election poll to date, shows that the Conservatives could win 178 seats (up from 121), Labour 174 (down from 412), and Reform UK 175 (a huge rise from only five seats).
The poll conducted national communications agency PLMR and Electoral Calculus predicted that multiple Labour ministers will have to give up their seats.
Rayner will lose her seat of Ashton-under-Lyne to Nigel Farage's party, whilst Home Secretary Cooper is also forecast to give up her seat of Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley to Reform UK.
Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is also forecast to lose Stalybridge and Hyde to Reform, whilst Wes Streeting is expected to lose hold of Ilford North to the Tories.'
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
Would have thought "massive racist" would have been essential on the person spec.
That's interesting - I think he's one of the Musk Bros in short trousers who connected a commercial server to the USA's financial systems in violation of law, and stole the database.
If he's out, does that mean he has been cast loose and could potentially be indicted. Chump has a record of cutting his fellow-criminals lose from previous cases when they were no longer any use to him.
He pardoned 1500 Jan 6 supporters. Trump only tends to cut people loose if they turn against him, or he believes they have.
In this case, the kid must know plenty. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a pardon-and-shut-up offer available.
IIRC accessing the tax records of a US citizen is a civil offense and therefore can't be pardoned. $1000 per...
The president can grant pardons for any "Offences against the United States". I'd be surprised if it wasn't covered.
And whether Trump can or can't constitutionally pardon someone, I'd absolutely expect him to claim he can, try it on, and dare someone to come against him - or hold out a worthless offer if even he knew it wasn't on but thought he could bluff the person he was selling it to.
That's the point. It's not an offence against "The United States". It's an offence against Joe Bloggs, citizen, millions of times
Like I say, I think he'd give the pardon anyway, whether or not it's valid. Techlad probably doesn't know the difference.
I'd be surprised if there's not a genuine data-related breach of law that would be covered though. Where it's an offence against an individual, wouldn't the penalty have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the specific circumstances?
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
5) The government allow more time to repay the debt provided they invest in infrastructure instead.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
Nobody should be bailed out because they've made a bad business/investment decision.
Being massively racist is the not particularly hidden subplot behind the anti-DEI programme. This guy can count himself unlucky to be fired for it.
IMV many of the anti-DEI types tend to be rather racist anyway; or at least, as we see on here, blind to racism. It's almost as though they require some DEI training...
In my experience it's been the DEI people who are racist, discriminating against people on the grounds of race (and sexuality and other irrelevant metrics), especially in the US. They feel self-righteous because they discriminate against the majority rather than the minority, but reverse discrimination on racial grounds is still racial discrimination, and reverse racism is still racism.
Which I wouldn't care about, it's America's problem, but unfortunately when America catches something nasty, the virus wafts over here.
The other factor militating against betting on Reform is that Farage looks fucking old for 61 lately so a health event can't be ruled out before the next GE. The bill will come due for the thousands of Silk Cut consumed eventually.
Silk Cut is for wimps. It's not proper smoking. Guy's a fraud.
Dunno. Never smerked a tab in my life. Apparently Belomors are the final boss of ciggies.
Good on you. It was my worst life choice. But if you did ... well Players NAVY Cut obvs.
Those or Capstan Full Strength were the Class As when I was starting. High tar, no filter, every drag hitting deep and the bonus of getting some loose tobacco stuck in your teeth.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
We need a Britain Trump to wipe out the Woke Politico-Juridical Complex. Entirely
Spend your extended stay in Thailand writing your political manifesto. Doesn't need detail - just identify the major problems facing normal voters (like Starmer's treason), come up with a few memorable lines and get a script that works in 30 and 60 second bursts.
Come home. Shoot a stack of these. Upload to TikTok. Fly off to wherever you like to write the next ones...
'Both Angela Rayner and Yvette Cooper are predicted to lose their seats as revealed in a shock poll which forecasts that Labour, Conservatives and Reform UK will be locked in a three-way tie.
A new MRP poll shows Reform at the top with 24 per cent of the vote, with Labour and the Tories just inches behind at 23 per cent each.
The survey of 5,743 British adults, the largest post-Election poll to date, shows that the Conservatives could win 178 seats (up from 121), Labour 174 (down from 412), and Reform UK 175 (a huge rise from only five seats).
The poll conducted national communications agency PLMR and Electoral Calculus predicted that multiple Labour ministers will have to give up their seats.
Rayner will lose her seat of Ashton-under-Lyne to Nigel Farage's party, whilst Home Secretary Cooper is also forecast to give up her seat of Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley to Reform UK.
Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is also forecast to lose Stalybridge and Hyde to Reform, whilst Wes Streeting is expected to lose hold of Ilford North to the Tories.'
Interesting. Looking forward to seeing the details later.
A small swing back of Green-Left-Independent (Muslim and other) voters back to Labour is a possible saver for Rayner, and to a slightly lesser extent for Reynolds. Cooper has no such cushion.
And, despite being a known segment, I don't think the pollsters or the MRP makers really have a handle on it, Ind was chronically under polled in MRPs in 2024.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
The other factor militating against betting on Reform is that Farage looks fucking old for 61 lately so a health event can't be ruled out before the next GE. The bill will come due for the thousands of Silk Cut consumed eventually.
Silk Cut is for wimps. It's not proper smoking. Guy's a fraud.
He isn't going to smoke Disque Bleu/Gauloises in public is he?
No, that'd be worse for his brand than menthol. But seriously, Silk Cut is not the cigarette for a muscular, no nonsense national populist. I bet when the GE comes around he switches to Camel.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
The other factor militating against betting on Reform is that Farage looks fucking old for 61 lately so a health event can't be ruled out before the next GE. The bill will come due for the thousands of Silk Cut consumed eventually.
Silk Cut is for wimps. It's not proper smoking. Guy's a fraud.
Dunno. Never smerked a tab in my life. Apparently Belomors are the final boss of ciggies.
Good on you. It was my worst life choice. But if you did ... well Players NAVY Cut obvs.
Those or Capstan Full Strength were the Class As when I was starting. High tar, no filter, every drag hitting deep and the bonus of getting some loose tobacco stuck in your teeth.
Never a smoker but my Grandad was a Woodbines (or rollies) man. He was church mouse poor so an indulgence on high days and holidays were Passing Clouds.
Not a filter in sight.
Back to UK politics.
More Labour immigration failure.
Rwanda / DRC kicking off and don't forget Rwanda destabilising a neighbour (supporting the M23) can't be happening because Rwanda is a safe country.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
Nobody should be bailed out because they've made a bad business/investment decision.
There are always calls to bailout Too Big To Fail. The simple answer is "no"
When Enron went down, before the fraud was revealed, Senator John "Keating Five" Glenn lambasted GWB for allowing "The Biggest Bankruptcy ever" to happen.
Within hours, he was trying to get his friends in the media to lose the interview tape....
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
Being massively racist is the not particularly hidden subplot behind the anti-DEI programme. This guy can count himself unlucky to be fired for it.
IMV many of the anti-DEI types tend to be rather racist anyway; or at least, as we see on here, blind to racism. It's almost as though they require some DEI training...
In my experience it's been the DEI people who are racist, discriminating against people on the grounds of race (and sexuality and other irrelevant metrics), especially in the US. They feel self-righteous because they discriminate against the majority rather than the minority, but reverse discrimination on racial grounds is still racial discrimination, and reverse racism is still racism.
Which I wouldn't care about, it's America's problem, but unfortunately when America catches something nasty, the virus wafts over here.
I'd quibble about using the term 'reverse racism'; racism is racism, whether it is white against asian, white against black; black against asian; or even asian against asian. IMO 'Reverse racism' doesn't work as a term because racism is so multi-directional.
But those cases you mention are extreme. What we are seeing in the anti-DEI shite is people going against *all* diversity, equality and inclusion. As we see all too often on here.
And unless you deny that there are inbuilt biases against certain people, whether they be the 'wrong' colour, sex or disability; and unless you think those biases are harmless, then those biases need addressing somehow. And the anti-DEI people are not interested in that; often because they are the beneficiaries of those biases.
Personally, I think addressing those biases matter. Not just morally, but because those biases hold the country back.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
I remember Spitting Image mocking the Lloyds names with a similar joke.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
The other factor militating against betting on Reform is that Farage looks fucking old for 61 lately so a health event can't be ruled out before the next GE. The bill will come due for the thousands of Silk Cut consumed eventually.
Silk Cut is for wimps. It's not proper smoking. Guy's a fraud.
He isn't going to smoke Disque Bleu/Gauloises in public is he?
No, that'd be worse for his brand than menthol. But seriously, Silk Cut is not the cigarette for a muscular, no nonsense national populist. I bet when the GE comes around he switches to Camel.
At one point Farage was denying there was any link between fags and deleterious health effects. Hard to tell if it was idiocy, narcissistic contrariness or just a desire to get in the Telegraph.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
We need a Britain Trump to wipe out the Woke Politico-Juridical Complex. Entirely
Spend your extended stay in Thailand writing your political manifesto. Doesn't need detail - just identify the major problems facing normal voters (like Starmer's treason), come up with a few memorable lines and get a script that works in 30 and 60 second bursts.
Come home. Shoot a stack of these. Upload to TikTok. Fly off to wherever you like to write the next ones...
I think he should do a tourist guide to the wet markets in Wuhan.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
I remember Spitting Image mocking the Lloyds names with a similar joke.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
Bastard Americans throwing their weight around acting like the world's policeman with their cultural, economic, and military imperialism.
Also fpt
Bastard Americans withdrawing a key instrument of aforementioned imperialism from the globe when the world needs it most and millions will die as a result.
The fantastic thing about Trump is that he is sending all the right people absolutely stark raving mad.
Is your point that you think it's "absolutely stark raving mad" to criticise cutting off aid from one day to the next?
Either you are a huge fan of the US's (multi-dimensional) force projection around the globe or you are not.
If you are, then don't complain when they engage in force projection around the globe. If you are not, then don't complain when they reduce force projection around the globe.
Your first sentence is wrong. Ergo, your conclusion is wrong.
What is wrong about it.
One can have a more nuanced position in the US’s global influence.
translation: I want the US to do exactly what I think it should do and not do what I don't think it should do.
I mean yes, that's pretty nuanced, but also unrealistic, dontcha think?
So we've moved from 'absolutely stark raving mad' to 'unrealistic' in a couple of posts. I suppose it's progress...
I suppose understanding the subtleties of rhetoric aren't your strong point. It's stark raving mad to expect US foreign policy to accord to "your" precise view of the world.
1. It's valid to be in against US humanitarian aid being cut off *even if that aid is entirely in the service of promoting US foreign policy goals*, while at the same time being against the US illegally invading other countries. I don't know if you are pretending to think that there is some contradiction, or what, as this seems very obvious and simple to understand. 2. You haven't given a single example of a stark raving mad post from the previous thread, so it's impossible to know what you are talking about.
I haven't read every post, but I saw posts implying it's a bad thing if people are losing life saving treatment from one day to the next, posts saying Marco Rubio was lying when he said this wouldn't happen, and posts saying it's not in America's interest for this to happen. So where were the absolutely stark raving mad posts oh master of the subtleties of rhetoric?
It is stark raving mad to try to cherry pick the foreign policy of any country in particular Trump America. Of course we like bits and bobs of any country's policies. But this has a strategic element.
USAID has, to quote the wiki scholar article, "served as a key institutional site for the promotion of US interests abroad". People are now upset that they are reining back their operations (or at least have announced something to that effect).
So not liking US cultural imperialism, and at the same time moaning about the restriction of a key tool which was designed to promote US interests abroad is stark raving mad.
Your welcome.
I can only conclude that you are stupid AND dishonest. You're welcome.
Well all your conclusions on this topic so far have been spectacularly misguided and almost wilfully ignorant so I will sleep easy tonight with your assessment.
I find it pathetic that you start off by calling unnamed posters stark raving mad, but can't give a single example of what you mean.
I bet you are unable to give a single example of my spectacularly misguided and wilfully ignorant posts either.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
Somebody who claims to be able to fix the country in 30 days is basically proving that they couldn't fix it however many days they were given. But no doubt it will go down well with the target audience.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
"This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration."
Are you referring to the average naïve Labour supporter who things the country's ills can be solved by putting in a bunch of droners and CV-fraudsters who would struggle to get a job above middle management in a private sector company?
Anyone who thinks the current Labour Party have any of the answers is very very low on information.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I never eat outside the house but if I did I wouldn't pay it because there was no tipping in the Paris Commune (see Marx's appendix to Lissagray's History of the Commune of 1871) or the anarchist communes of Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
You can't fix all the country's problems in 30 days, but you can disempower the people who are making them worse, for example the aforementioned Woke Politico-Juridical Complex.
Ilford North was a safe Conservative seat not too long ago, with lots of big houses, independent and grammar schools, and borders with IDS's Chingford, Andrew Rosindell's Romford and HYUFD's Epping Forest, as well as the affluent Wanstead. It shows how voting has become detached from economics for both Labour and Conservatives.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
We need a Britain Trump to wipe out the Woke Politico-Juridical Complex. Entirely
Artists who exalt war are not thought of kindly.
"We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice....we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries." - Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in The Futurist Manifesto, 1909
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Or go to McDonalds or Spoons and pay for the meal up front.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I don't object to paying a reasonable amount for the service provided. I do object to it being smuggled into the bill.
Pay staff properly. If the service was poor, say so. If you don't want to take it up in person (though that's better if possible), there's always Tripadvisor.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
We need a Britain Trump to wipe out the Woke Politico-Juridical Complex. Entirely
Artists who exalt war are not thought of kindly.
"We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice....we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries." - Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in The Futurist Manifesto, 1909
Invoking the cosmopolitan enemy within is classic fascist discourse.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
I remember Spitting Image mocking the Lloyds names with a similar joke.
In the case of the Lloyds names, there was a systematic fraud where people were sold a "safe investment" which was actually structured to make them first in line for loses, while protecting the people running the scheme.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I don't object to paying a reasonable amount for the service provided. I do object to it being smuggled into the bill.
Pay staff properly. If the service was poor, say so. If you don't want to take it up in person (though that's better if possible), there's always Tripadvisor.
Always take it up in person. I despise people who put negative comments on Tripadvisor or similar from the safety of their keyboard without thought for the damage they might create to a business that might have had an off day
Ban this sick filth or is ban these to save our kids?
What a fantastic price. Great value. As they have Gino's name on it they will be top of the range and not branded crap that goes blunt after chopping one onion.
OT this afternoon I shall make my thousandth Deliveroo order from the fish and chip shop. I shan't be marking the occasion with a £1,000 tip because that would be creepy and might look like a harbinger of unwanted sexual advances later on, or at best an unequal power relationship with me lording it over low-paid, part-time workers. But if I'd tipped a pound each order (as I do for the riders) the amount would be the same but there would be no such connotations. It can be strange how framing alters perceptions.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
"This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration."
Are you referring to the average naïve Labour supporter who things the country's ills can be solved by putting in a bunch of droners and CV-fraudsters who would struggle to get a job above middle management in a private sector company?
Anyone who thinks the current Labour Party have any of the answers is very very low on information.
Don't confuse the Labour voters with the Labour party, particularly when Labour had massive 20 points leads with anyone aged under 50, with a degree, or in work, or earning over £50,000.
The fact they're losing most of their support to "will not vote" or "don't know" suggests people are disappointed that they haven't done enough to shake things up, not an ideological break. I think Reeves has one more chance at a budget for some major reforms; if that doesn't happen, the best chance for Labour comes from Reform becoming the main opposition and the prospect of PM Farage.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
I think it's fairly obvious to most that such a promise - fixing in 30 days - is that after a month or so of Party X being in government the general public would have a clear idea of the 'where we are going and how we are going to get there' with costings and timescale and without doublethink, and grappling decisively with the sorts of issues usually left ambiguous.
It's a big programme, but government runs a huge % of the entire state. And has lots of people to give it a hand.
Most people know that can't all be done in an election campaign because of human nature, but it reasonable to assume that there is a real top quality plan to be unveiled.
And I think most people who lent their vote to Labour in July had something like that as a reasonable expectation. It was be reasonable, for example, to assume that we would know by now precisely the future trajectory for social care, its funding and relation with the NHS.
Bastard Americans throwing their weight around acting like the world's policeman with their cultural, economic, and military imperialism.
Also fpt
Bastard Americans withdrawing a key instrument of aforementioned imperialism from the globe when the world needs it most and millions will die as a result.
The fantastic thing about Trump is that he is sending all the right people absolutely stark raving mad.
Is your point that you think it's "absolutely stark raving mad" to criticise cutting off aid from one day to the next?
Either you are a huge fan of the US's (multi-dimensional) force projection around the globe or you are not.
If you are, then don't complain when they engage in force projection around the globe. If you are not, then don't complain when they reduce force projection around the globe.
Your first sentence is wrong. Ergo, your conclusion is wrong.
What is wrong about it.
One can have a more nuanced position in the US’s global influence.
translation: I want the US to do exactly what I think it should do and not do what I don't think it should do.
I mean yes, that's pretty nuanced, but also unrealistic, dontcha think?
So we've moved from 'absolutely stark raving mad' to 'unrealistic' in a couple of posts. I suppose it's progress...
I suppose understanding the subtleties of rhetoric aren't your strong point. It's stark raving mad to expect US foreign policy to accord to "your" precise view of the world.
1. It's valid to be in against US humanitarian aid being cut off *even if that aid is entirely in the service of promoting US foreign policy goals*, while at the same time being against the US illegally invading other countries. I don't know if you are pretending to think that there is some contradiction, or what, as this seems very obvious and simple to understand. 2. You haven't given a single example of a stark raving mad post from the previous thread, so it's impossible to know what you are talking about.
I haven't read every post, but I saw posts implying it's a bad thing if people are losing life saving treatment from one day to the next, posts saying Marco Rubio was lying when he said this wouldn't happen, and posts saying it's not in America's interest for this to happen. So where were the absolutely stark raving mad posts oh master of the subtleties of rhetoric?
It is stark raving mad to try to cherry pick the foreign policy of any country in particular Trump America. Of course we like bits and bobs of any country's policies. But this has a strategic element.
USAID has, to quote the wiki scholar article, "served as a key institutional site for the promotion of US interests abroad". People are now upset that they are reining back their operations (or at least have announced something to that effect).
So not liking US cultural imperialism, and at the same time moaning about the restriction of a key tool which was designed to promote US interests abroad is stark raving mad.
Your welcome.
I can only conclude that you are stupid AND dishonest. You're welcome.
Well all your conclusions on this topic so far have been spectacularly misguided and almost wilfully ignorant so I will sleep easy tonight with your assessment.
I find it pathetic that you start off by calling unnamed posters stark raving mad, but can't give a single example of what you mean.
I bet you are unable to give a single example of my spectacularly misguided and wilfully ignorant posts either.
I have explained countless times why posters, you included, were, and still are stark raving mad.
And your entire oeuvre this morning displays heroic quantities of ignorance, wilful or otherwise.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I never eat outside the house but if I did I wouldn't pay it because there was no tipping in the Paris Commune (see Marx's appendix to Lissagray's History of the Commune of 1871) or the anarchist communes of Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War.
For god sake don't find yourself in a Starbucks in NYC (as can so often happen). They give you on the payment screen several tip options from 10% (no one dares...) to I believe 25% or perhaps higher.
If US-style tipping comes to the UK we'll all be forced to "do a Rachel".
The other factor militating against betting on Reform is that Farage looks fucking old for 61 lately so a health event can't be ruled out before the next GE. The bill will come due for the thousands of Silk Cut consumed eventually.
Silk Cut is for wimps. It's not proper smoking. Guy's a fraud.
Dunno. Never smerked a tab in my life. Apparently Belomors are the final boss of ciggies.
Good on you. It was my worst life choice. But if you did ... well Players NAVY Cut obvs.
Those or Capstan Full Strength were the Class As when I was starting. High tar, no filter, every drag hitting deep and the bonus of getting some loose tobacco stuck in your teeth.
Never a smoker but my Grandad was a Woodbines (or rollies) man. He was church mouse poor so an indulgence on high days and holidays were Passing Clouds.
Not a filter in sight.
Back to UK politics.
More Labour immigration failure.
Rwanda / DRC kicking off and don't forget Rwanda destabilising a neighbour (supporting the M23) can't be happening because Rwanda is a safe country.
It's not looking good, is it. A powerful wave is building and Farage is surfing it with all the grace and skill of Elvis in Blue Hawaii. But the darkest hour is just before the dawn. That's what they say and there's a reason they do. Hubris will soon kick in and he'll fall off his board.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I don't object to paying a reasonable amount for the service provided. I do object to it being smuggled into the bill.
Pay staff properly. If the service was poor, say so. If you don't want to take it up in person (though that's better if possible), there's always Tripadvisor.
Always take it up in person. I despise people who put negative comments on Tripadvisor or similar from the safety of their keyboard without thought for the damage they might create to a business that might have had an off day
The only exception I would make would be if the place's management had already demonstrated an unreasonable or aggressive attitude.
FWIW, I generally do it the other way round, using Tripadvisor to reward and publicise places with excellent service.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
I remember Spitting Image mocking the Lloyds names with a similar joke.
In the case of the Lloyds names, there was a systematic fraud where people were sold a "safe investment" which was actually structured to make them first in line for loses, while protecting the people running the scheme.
Interesting. The way it was presented at the time was that Lloyds names were just toffs who took a gamble, made lots of money in the good times, and when it went against them were whining.
Ban this sick filth or is ban these to save our kids?
What a fantastic price. Great value. As they have Gino's name on it they will be top of the range and not branded crap that goes blunt after chopping one onion.
Will have to get some
I have, in my kitchen, a block of crap knives for general stuff. They can go in the dishwasher etc.
The good knives, which I sharpen like Death's scythe in Reaper Man, are in a separate block.
The other factor militating against betting on Reform is that Farage looks fucking old for 61 lately so a health event can't be ruled out before the next GE. The bill will come due for the thousands of Silk Cut consumed eventually.
Silk Cut is for wimps. It's not proper smoking. Guy's a fraud.
He isn't going to smoke Disque Bleu/Gauloises in public is he?
No, that'd be worse for his brand than menthol. But seriously, Silk Cut is not the cigarette for a muscular, no nonsense national populist. I bet when the GE comes around he switches to Camel.
At one point Farage was denying there was any link between fags and deleterious health effects. Hard to tell if it was idiocy, narcissistic contrariness or just a desire to get in the Telegraph.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
We need a Britain Trump to wipe out the Woke Politico-Juridical Complex. Entirely
Artists who exalt war are not thought of kindly.
"We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice....we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries." - Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in The Futurist Manifesto, 1909
Yeah the futurists were big proponents of war ("war is the world's only hygiene") right up until shedloads of them were, er, killed in the war.
At least our Vorticists restricted themselves to writing angry manifestos. Although some of the art they produced during and at war was extraordinary. Wyndham Lewis was at Passchendaele.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
I remember Spitting Image mocking the Lloyds names with a similar joke.
In the case of the Lloyds names, there was a systematic fraud where people were sold a "safe investment" which was actually structured to make them first in line for loses, while protecting the people running the scheme.
Interesting. The way it was presented at the time was that Lloyds names were just toffs who took a gamble, made lots of money in the good times, and when it went against them were whining.
How could Lloyds names possibly know that losses were possible? It's not like they had the omniscience of Waspi women. These were more like masters of the universe bankers being bailed out after yet another sure bet went pear-shaped but it wasn't their fault and anyway they didn't do anything and look squirrel.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
"This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration."
Are you referring to the average naïve Labour supporter who things the country's ills can be solved by putting in a bunch of droners and CV-fraudsters who would struggle to get a job above middle management in a private sector company?
Anyone who thinks the current Labour Party have any of the answers is very very low on information.
Thinking that any party or politician can make a speedy positive transformational difference to the country is a sign of ignorance and stupidity.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I don't object to paying a reasonable amount for the service provided. I do object to it being smuggled into the bill.
Pay staff properly. If the service was poor, say so. If you don't want to take it up in person (though that's better if possible), there's always Tripadvisor.
Always take it up in person. I despise people who put negative comments on Tripadvisor or similar from the safety of their keyboard without thought for the damage they might create to a business that might have had an off day
The only exception I would make would be if the place's management had already demonstrated an unreasonable or aggressive attitude.
FWIW, I generally do it the other way round, using Tripadvisor to reward and publicise places with excellent service.
The conventional wisdom is that 5-star reviews are left by owners and managers, whereas 1-star reviews are left by owners and managers of nearby rival establishments.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
I remember Spitting Image mocking the Lloyds names with a similar joke.
In the case of the Lloyds names, there was a systematic fraud where people were sold a "safe investment" which was actually structured to make them first in line for loses, while protecting the people running the scheme.
Interesting. The way it was presented at the time was that Lloyds names were just toffs who took a gamble, made lots of money in the good times, and when it went against them were whining.
How could Lloyds names possibly know that losses were possible? It's not like they had the omniscience of Waspi women. These were more like masters of the universe bankers being bailed out after yet another sure bet went pear-shaped but it wasn't their fault and anyway they didn't do anything and look squirrel.
In a number of cases, actual advice letters were written saying "the unlimited liability thing in the contract is 18th cent nonsense and can't actually happen"
As is, literal mis-selling. "Invest in the oldest insurance market, safe as houses. No risk"
The way it was structured was a rigged game - with those not In The Know totally exposed.
The shareholders and bondholders should be sh!tting themselves right now.
The shareholders shouldn’t be trying to extract £790m from the £1.5bn being borrowed while others charge £210m for facilitating the early repayment of debt
I can see the court rejecting the deal for being a con while also complaining about the amount of information they tried to hide from the court
Can anyone tell me why the following is a bad idea -
1) Let Thames Water go bust. 2) Shareholders and bondholders get wiped out (partially?) 3) The government backs the bills of suppliers, so the network of suppliers is protected and they are paid on time. 4) Without the debt mountain, the company is extremely profitable. It can easily repay the government for (3)
I thought the justification for capitalist investors' high returns and low taxation thereof, CGT below the level fo income tax, dividends ditto, was the risk taking in the first place? So what have they to complain about?
I'm reminded of a Steve Bell cartoon decades ago - at the time of some City scandal. I forget the details, so don't want to name the name I dimly recollect, but basically the investors (who were, one assumes, all grown ups) were demanding that they be repaid - perhaps [edit] at public expense. Mr Bell's response was to have his penguins attend the Derby, troop up to the bookie, put their houses on a horse that would have been slower than the one used in the Great Escape, with the obvious results, and then demand to be paid their winnings as if it had come first.
I remember Spitting Image mocking the Lloyds names with a similar joke.
In the case of the Lloyds names, there was a systematic fraud where people were sold a "safe investment" which was actually structured to make them first in line for loses, while protecting the people running the scheme.
Interesting. The way it was presented at the time was that Lloyds names were just toffs who took a gamble, made lots of money in the good times, and when it went against them were whining.
How could Lloyds names possibly know that losses were possible? It's not like they had the omniscience of Waspi women. These were more like masters of the universe bankers being bailed out after yet another sure bet went pear-shaped but it wasn't their fault and anyway they didn't do anything and look squirrel.
WASPI women are, mainly, entitled middle class white boomers who are victims of their own stupidity or lack of attention to detail.
The allegation about Lloyds Names is it was deliberate fraud. I don't know either way. I just found it interesting given how it was presented at the time.
Some middle aged women not reading a letter or forgetting about having it is not fraud.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I don't object to paying a reasonable amount for the service provided. I do object to it being smuggled into the bill.
Pay staff properly. If the service was poor, say so. If you don't want to take it up in person (though that's better if possible), there's always Tripadvisor.
Always take it up in person. I despise people who put negative comments on Tripadvisor or similar from the safety of their keyboard without thought for the damage they might create to a business that might have had an off day
The only exception I would make would be if the place's management had already demonstrated an unreasonable or aggressive attitude.
FWIW, I generally do it the other way round, using Tripadvisor to reward and publicise places with excellent service.
The conventional wisdom is that 5-star reviews are left by owners and managers, whereas 1-star reviews are left by owners and managers of nearby rival establishments.
I especially treasure the 1 star reviews that are "We went into this award winning fine dining restaurant and they wouldn't serve us nachos and beer. Plus the waiter objected to my husband's MAGA cap."
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
You can't fix all the country's problems in 30 days, but you can disempower the people who are making them worse, for example the aforementioned Woke Politico-Juridical Complex.
Quite right. Service charges increasingly take the piss, the economics are irrational, it appropriates what was formerly a return to labour (tipping) to capital, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty and emotional strife to all involved in the transaction.
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
Agree with the overall sentiment but disagree the economics are irrational. Tipping is a means by which restaurants turn a fixed cost for them into a variable cost for their customers.
I don't object to a service charge unless the service was poor
I don't object to paying a reasonable amount for the service provided. I do object to it being smuggled into the bill.
Pay staff properly. If the service was poor, say so. If you don't want to take it up in person (though that's better if possible), there's always Tripadvisor.
Always take it up in person. I despise people who put negative comments on Tripadvisor or similar from the safety of their keyboard without thought for the damage they might create to a business that might have had an off day
Yes, I almost always only give good reviews. If I get bad service (in any area) I always give the provider the chance to put things right first. Everyone can have bad luck or an off day, and a good way to judge a provider is by the way they deal with a mistake.
But I did, very unusually, write a bad review recently. This was for a plumber whose efforts to repair a leak actually made it worse. After a month of excuses and missed appointments to fix the problem, I eventually gave up and got another (competent) plumber to fix it properly. The first plumber was incompetent and unreliable, but I still felt bad about giving him a bad review.
“Sir Keir Starmer’s “national security” justification for handing over the Chagos islands was proposed by one of his closest friends, who represented Mauritius in a case against the UK”
We need a Britain Trump to wipe out the Woke Politico-Juridical Complex. Entirely
Artists who exalt war are not thought of kindly.
"We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice....we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries." - Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in The Futurist Manifesto, 1909
Yeah the futurists were big proponents of war ("war is the world's only hygiene") right up until shedloads of them were, er, killed in the war.
At least our Vorticists restricted themselves to writing angry manifestos. Although some of the art they produced during and at war was extraordinary. Wyndham Lewis was at Passchendaele.
Or Nevinson: never forgotten his work at the IWM of soldiers marching.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
Interesting. it seems to me that one of the effects of digitalisation/social media is that very local/individualised stuff can be organised from the other side of the planet.
I live in the great Penrith and Border seat - Willie Whitelaw land - now called Penrith and Solway with greatly altered boundaries. During the July election I experienced two unique things: I was visited at the door by a Labour canvasser, and I encountered a group of Labour canvassers in a small town in the seat.
My belief is that all this is a symptom, not a cause, of the fact that Labour won.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
The other factor militating against betting on Reform is that Farage looks fucking old for 61 lately so a health event can't be ruled out before the next GE. The bill will come due for the thousands of Silk Cut consumed eventually.
Silk Cut is for wimps. It's not proper smoking. Guy's a fraud.
Dunno. Never smerked a tab in my life. Apparently Belomors are the final boss of ciggies.
Good on you. It was my worst life choice. But if you did ... well Players NAVY Cut obvs.
Those or Capstan Full Strength were the Class As when I was starting. High tar, no filter, every drag hitting deep and the bonus of getting some loose tobacco stuck in your teeth.
Never a smoker but my Grandad was a Woodbines (or rollies) man. He was church mouse poor so an indulgence on high days and holidays were Passing Clouds.
Not a filter in sight.
Back to UK politics.
More Labour immigration failure.
Rwanda / DRC kicking off and don't forget Rwanda destabilising a neighbour (supporting the M23) can't be happening because Rwanda is a safe country.
It's not looking good, is it. A powerful wave is building and Farage is surfing it with all the grace and skill of Elvis in Blue Hawaii. But the darkest hour is just before the dawn. That's what they say and there's a reason they do. Hubris will soon kick in and he'll fall off his board.
It's also not true. The darkest hour is at local midnight. Just before dawn is usually pretty bright.
Bastard Americans throwing their weight around acting like the world's policeman with their cultural, economic, and military imperialism.
Also fpt
Bastard Americans withdrawing a key instrument of aforementioned imperialism from the globe when the world needs it most and millions will die as a result.
The fantastic thing about Trump is that he is sending all the right people absolutely stark raving mad.
Is your point that you think it's "absolutely stark raving mad" to criticise cutting off aid from one day to the next?
Either you are a huge fan of the US's (multi-dimensional) force projection around the globe or you are not.
If you are, then don't complain when they engage in force projection around the globe. If you are not, then don't complain when they reduce force projection around the globe.
Your first sentence is wrong. Ergo, your conclusion is wrong.
What is wrong about it.
One can have a more nuanced position in the US’s global influence.
translation: I want the US to do exactly what I think it should do and not do what I don't think it should do.
I mean yes, that's pretty nuanced, but also unrealistic, dontcha think?
So we've moved from 'absolutely stark raving mad' to 'unrealistic' in a couple of posts. I suppose it's progress...
I suppose understanding the subtleties of rhetoric aren't your strong point. It's stark raving mad to expect US foreign policy to accord to "your" precise view of the world.
1. It's valid to be in against US humanitarian aid being cut off *even if that aid is entirely in the service of promoting US foreign policy goals*, while at the same time being against the US illegally invading other countries. I don't know if you are pretending to think that there is some contradiction, or what, as this seems very obvious and simple to understand. 2. You haven't given a single example of a stark raving mad post from the previous thread, so it's impossible to know what you are talking about.
I haven't read every post, but I saw posts implying it's a bad thing if people are losing life saving treatment from one day to the next, posts saying Marco Rubio was lying when he said this wouldn't happen, and posts saying it's not in America's interest for this to happen. So where were the absolutely stark raving mad posts oh master of the subtleties of rhetoric?
It is stark raving mad to try to cherry pick the foreign policy of any country in particular Trump America. Of course we like bits and bobs of any country's policies. But this has a strategic element.
USAID has, to quote the wiki scholar article, "served as a key institutional site for the promotion of US interests abroad". People are now upset that they are reining back their operations (or at least have announced something to that effect).
So not liking US cultural imperialism, and at the same time moaning about the restriction of a key tool which was designed to promote US interests abroad is stark raving mad.
Your welcome.
I can only conclude that you are stupid AND dishonest. You're welcome.
Well all your conclusions on this topic so far have been spectacularly misguided and almost wilfully ignorant so I will sleep easy tonight with your assessment.
I find it pathetic that you start off by calling unnamed posters stark raving mad, but can't give a single example of what you mean.
I bet you are unable to give a single example of my spectacularly misguided and wilfully ignorant posts either.
I have explained countless times why posters, you included, were, and still are stark raving mad.
And your entire oeuvre this morning displays heroic quantities of ignorance, wilful or otherwise.
Like I said, no actual examples. Pathetic.
Look if you want to defend cutting USAID from one day to the next on some real grounds, go ahead, otherwise piss off.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
"This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration."
Are you referring to the average naïve Labour supporter who things the country's ills can be solved by putting in a bunch of droners and CV-fraudsters who would struggle to get a job above middle management in a private sector company?
Anyone who thinks the current Labour Party have any of the answers is very very low on information.
Thinking that any party or politician can make a speedy positive transformational difference to the country is a sign of ignorance and stupidity.
Hmmmm
Not so sure. I think changes in process and systems can be put through quite rapidly. The results will take longer.
For example, a planning process similar to the that used for offshore wind could be introduced quite rapidly, in other areas. By specifying the documentation that guarantees success and virtually eliminates the serial appeal comedy, years can be removed from the process.
That could be done within 30 days of a new government. But would take much longer to have an effect.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
On topic, Reform aren't going to win anything (you heard it here first). They are the descendants of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists and that's not how we roll in this country.
That's not quite right.
Whilst Reform does attract a fringe of 'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists", it's chief concern - immigration - is shared by a significant percentage of voters.
For me, the main drawback of Reform is that they have no serious economic policy and have done no serious thinking on how to cut net migration.
I just don't see anything in the history of Reform to make me think they'll win more than a handful of seats despite what the opinion polls say. They have a leader with barely any interest in actually leading a political party and no more appealing alternatives. Their on the ground organisation is shambolic to non existent and their candidate selection is notoriously awful. To cap it all off their corporate structure is weird which will cause huge problems if Farage ever needs to be replaced. Of course Reform could change all this but I don't see any real signs of it.
All true, but the present time seems to be one where current outcomes don't have a great deal of regard for what happened last week, last year or last several decades.
Politics is all relative. If voters decide that Lab/Con is are not competent or serious enough to govern, then something else will happen.
Perhaps the most sensible thing the total electorate can do is decide that the next contest should be between LDs representing the centre left and Reform representing the right/centre right.
Correct.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
An increasingly prominent tool in their box, the national populist shysters, is the promise of vigour and dynamism. Eg the latest from RUK saying they can (dreaded word) "fix" the country in 30 days. This is appealing to the large number of voters who are low information, high frustration.
I think it's fairly obvious to most that such a promise - fixing in 30 days - is that after a month or so of Party X being in government the general public would have a clear idea of the 'where we are going and how we are going to get there' with costings and timescale and without doublethink, and grappling decisively with the sorts of issues usually left ambiguous.
It's a big programme, but government runs a huge % of the entire state. And has lots of people to give it a hand.
Most people know that can't all be done in an election campaign because of human nature, but it reasonable to assume that there is a real top quality plan to be unveiled.
And I think most people who lent their vote to Labour in July had something like that as a reasonable expectation. It was be reasonable, for example, to assume that we would know by now precisely the future trajectory for social care, its funding and relation with the NHS.
Sure, there are reasonable gripes. I have them too. But populists do rely on people's expectations of how much government can improve things being inflated. This makes their "bish bash bosh, simple innit" pitch appealing.
Comments
I'd be surprised if there's not a genuine data-related breach of law that would be covered though. Where it's an offence against an individual, wouldn't the penalty have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the specific circumstances?
A new MRP poll shows Reform at the top with 24 per cent of the vote, with Labour and the Tories just inches behind at 23 per cent each.
The survey of 5,743 British adults, the largest post-Election poll to date, shows that the Conservatives could win 178 seats (up from 121), Labour 174 (down from 412), and Reform UK 175 (a huge rise from only five seats).
The poll conducted national communications agency PLMR and Electoral Calculus predicted that multiple Labour ministers will have to give up their seats.
Rayner will lose her seat of Ashton-under-Lyne to Nigel Farage's party, whilst Home Secretary Cooper is also forecast to give up her seat of Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley to Reform UK.
Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is also forecast to lose Stalybridge and Hyde to Reform, whilst Wes Streeting is expected to lose hold of Ilford North to the Tories.'
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/politics-news-latest-tories-migrants-barred-suella-braverman-lord-hermer-chagos
Spend a year in a country where you don't tip or pay charges and the stupidity of it becomes obvious.
https://x.com/leftbrexit/status/1879565788107223353
What I saw elsewhere, every count, $1000 fine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2p19l24g2o
"Thousands of Britons dating chatbots amid surge in loneliness
Think tank warns over psychological risks as nearly 1m turn to digital companions"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/07/thousands-of-britons-dating-chatbots-amid-surge-loneliness/
Which I wouldn't care about, it's America's problem, but unfortunately when America catches something nasty, the virus wafts over here.
Those or Capstan Full Strength were the Class As when I was starting. High tar, no filter, every drag hitting deep and the bonus of getting some loose tobacco stuck in your teeth.
On-the-ground support matters in local by-elections (and, indeed, parliamentary by-elections). But local data and activists isn't hugely influential in national campaigns. It makes a marginal difference and that could matter but national databanks and the ability to microtarget messages to individuals matters much more. If Reform are sensible then that's what they'll be doing. It's not 1985 any more.
The radical right international ecosystem has been pretty smart at that kind of campaigning, including the Brexit Leave campaigns, and I see no reason to assume that Reform will depart from a model which has worked effectively and which they and their peers know well.
Come home. Shoot a stack of these. Upload to TikTok. Fly off to wherever you like to write the next ones...
And, despite being a known segment, I don't think the pollsters or the MRP makers really have a handle on it, Ind was chronically under polled in MRPs in 2024.
I'm sure a few on here would chip in so that they can report back on the quality of the khat & whores.
Sounds like a real liability.
Not a filter in sight.
Back to UK politics.
More Labour immigration failure.
Rwanda / DRC kicking off and don't forget Rwanda destabilising a neighbour (supporting the M23) can't be happening because Rwanda is a safe country.
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20250207-we-re-in-an-aggression-situation-rwanda-invaded-east-drc-with-no-meaningful-self-defence-argument
When Enron went down, before the fraud was revealed, Senator John "Keating Five" Glenn lambasted GWB for allowing "The Biggest Bankruptcy ever" to happen.
Within hours, he was trying to get his friends in the media to lose the interview tape....
My arse.
But those cases you mention are extreme. What we are seeing in the anti-DEI shite is people going against *all* diversity, equality and inclusion. As we see all too often on here.
And unless you deny that there are inbuilt biases against certain people, whether they be the 'wrong' colour, sex or disability; and unless you think those biases are harmless, then those biases need addressing somehow. And the anti-DEI people are not interested in that; often because they are the beneficiaries of those biases.
Personally, I think addressing those biases matter. Not just morally, but because those biases hold the country back.
A PB contributor for PM?
Starmer would do better if he had more friends who were toolmakers or toolmakers sons.
I bet you are unable to give a single example of my spectacularly misguided and wilfully ignorant posts either.
Are you referring to the average naïve Labour supporter who things the country's ills can be solved by putting in a bunch of droners and CV-fraudsters who would struggle to get a job above middle management in a private sector company?
Anyone who thinks the current Labour Party have any of the answers is very very low on information.
"We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice....we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries." - Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in The Futurist Manifesto, 1909
Pay staff properly. If the service was poor, say so. If you don't want to take it up in person (though that's better if possible), there's always Tripadvisor.
Will have to get some
Also I don't have a spare £1,000 so there's that.
The fact they're losing most of their support to "will not vote" or "don't know" suggests people are disappointed that they haven't done enough to shake things up, not an ideological break. I think Reeves has one more chance at a budget for some major reforms; if that doesn't happen, the best chance for Labour comes from Reform becoming the main opposition and the prospect of PM Farage.
usually left ambiguous.
It's a big programme, but government runs a huge % of the entire state. And has lots of people to give it a hand.
Most people know that can't all be done in an election campaign because of human nature, but it reasonable to assume that there is a real top quality plan to be unveiled.
And I think most people who lent their vote to Labour in July had something like that as a reasonable expectation. It was be reasonable, for example, to assume that we would know by now precisely the future trajectory for social care, its funding and relation with the NHS.
And your entire oeuvre this morning displays heroic quantities of ignorance, wilful or otherwise.
Nuclear power plant ‘blocked after concerns for Welsh language’
There were fears the £20bn project on Anglesey would lead to the departure of Welsh speakers, who make up 57 per cent of the island’s residents
A nuclear power station was blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language.
As Sir Keir Starmer seeks to launch a generation of mini nuclear plants, senior figures in the industry figures vented their frustration at existing barriers to building.
In one case government planning inspectors rejected a multibillion-pound project on Anglesey on grounds including the negative “socio-economic” impact on the local community.
They said it could put pressure on housing, forcing locals to relocate. “In turn, given the number of Welsh-speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture,” the five planning inspectors said in their report, published in 2021.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/nuclear-power-plant-blocked-because-of-impact-on-welsh-language-3lfh3djnm
Mr Trump's latest order sanctions people associated with the International Criminal Court. Amusingly, he calls it "illegitimate".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2p19l24g2o
He did that last time, too.
If US-style tipping comes to the UK we'll all be forced to "do a Rachel".
FWIW, I generally do it the other way round, using Tripadvisor to reward and publicise places with excellent service.
The good knives, which I sharpen like Death's scythe in Reaper Man, are in a separate block.
At least our Vorticists restricted themselves to writing angry manifestos. Although some of the art they produced during and at war was extraordinary. Wyndham Lewis was at Passchendaele.
Will there be many red wall Lab to Ref defections? Must've been quite lonely for this lady.
Tom Harwood@tomhfh
·
31m
NEW: Ashfield Labour Councillor Cathy Mason has defected to the Reform Party.
There are now no longer any Labour Party representatives left on the Ashfield District Council.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/planners-recommended-against-nuclear-plant-in-2019-citing-fears-for-welsh-language/ar-AA1yAlFs?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=ade77d81fba04530e9900138fc9abc7e&ei=25
As is, literal mis-selling. "Invest in the oldest insurance market, safe as houses. No risk"
The way it was structured was a rigged game - with those not In The Know totally exposed.
The allegation about Lloyds Names is it was deliberate fraud. I don't know either way. I just found it interesting given how it was presented at the time.
Some middle aged women not reading a letter or forgetting about having it is not fraud.
But I did, very unusually, write a bad review recently. This was for a plumber whose efforts to repair a leak actually made it worse. After a month of excuses and missed appointments to fix the problem, I eventually gave up and got another (competent) plumber to fix it properly. The first plumber was incompetent and unreliable, but I still felt bad about giving him a bad review.
https://www.facebook.com/britishmuseum/posts/english-painter-and-printmaker-c-r-w-nevinson-was-a-celebrated-war-artist-and-ca/10158521315264723/
I live in the great Penrith and Border seat - Willie Whitelaw land - now called Penrith and Solway with greatly altered boundaries. During the July election I experienced two unique things: I was visited at the door by a Labour canvasser, and I encountered a group of Labour canvassers in a small town in the seat.
My belief is that all this is a symptom, not a cause, of the fact that Labour won.
Look if you want to defend cutting USAID from one day to the next on some real grounds, go ahead, otherwise piss off.
Not so sure. I think changes in process and systems can be put through quite rapidly. The results will take longer.
For example, a planning process similar to the that used for offshore wind could be introduced quite rapidly, in other areas. By specifying the documentation that guarantees success and virtually eliminates the serial appeal comedy, years can be removed from the process.
That could be done within 30 days of a new government. But would take much longer to have an effect.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-asks-apple-let-it-spy-users-encrypted-accounts-washington-post-reports-2025-02-07/