It's pretty outrageous that Canada now has a PM that's not an MP (even if it will only be for a short time)
Could a political party get away with that here? Maybe there's still time for a Boris comeback?
PBers need a history lesson.
The Earl of Home waves.
Yes of course. But... that was 1963. Could that happen now?: Doubtful?
And the Conservatives ultimately lost the 1964 and 1966 general elections...
Depends, the country would approve if Lord Cameron became PM again.
Well he would now be a strong contender to replace Ed Davey as LD leader..after all he won most of the seats the LDs now hold in 2010 and 2015 and his 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD government was closer in policy to the LDs now than the Tories or Labour or Reform
Tesla $TSLA stock is (was?) very popular with US retail investors, many of whom trade on margin under the RegT provisions. Very soon there are going to have to be margin calls if the shares no longer provide adequate collateral. That's going to lead to a sell-off - not only of Tesla shares, but also of other liquid stocks. If the rot continues, then it's a case of "sell what you can, not what you want." And of course the most exposed investor of them all is Mr Musk himself. When he has to start selling, it's going to lead to a rout. Sell US equities, buy European bonds, tinned food and personal small arms.
Meanwhile, over on LinkedIn (I know, I know...) a new knight in shining armour has just come to Rupert Lowe's defence - and it's none other than Andrew Bridgen! Apparently, the woman who has made the complaint used to work for Bridgen, and he says that he has her authority to confirm that the complaint she made was not about Rupe. Strange days indeed....
It's pretty outrageous that Canada now has a PM that's not an MP (even if it will only be for a short time)
Could a political party get away with that here? Maybe there's still time for a Boris comeback?
PBers need a history lesson.
The Earl of Home waves.
Yes of course. But... that was 1963. Could that happen now?: Doubtful?
And the Conservatives ultimately lost the 1964 and 1966 general elections...
Depends, the country would approve if Lord Cameron became PM again.
Well he would now be a strong contender to replace Ed Davey as LD leader..after all he won most of the seats the LDs now hold in 2010 and 2015 and his 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD government was closer in policy to the LDs now than the Tories or Labour or Reform
The LD's could never win plenty of seats on austerity-associated ticket again, and they know that well. A separate centrist-tory party perhaps.
It's pretty outrageous that Canada now has a PM that's not an MP (even if it will only be for a short time)
Could a political party get away with that here? Maybe there's still time for a Boris comeback?
PBers need a history lesson.
The Earl of Home waves.
Yes of course. But... that was 1963. Could that happen now?: Doubtful?
And the Conservatives ultimately lost the 1964 and 1966 general elections...
It was January 1963 And Johnny came home with a gift for me He said "I bought it for cos I love you" And I bought for you cos it's your birthday too" He was so very nice He was so very kind To think of me At this point in time
Per @POTUS directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden "disinformation" letter. The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden
I find it slightly weird that people in the US go on receiving confidential briefings after they've left office; it seems a strange practice that it would probably be best ending irrespective.
Per @POTUS directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden "disinformation" letter. The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden
I find it slightly weird that people in the US go on receiving confidential briefings after they've left office; it seems a strange practice that it would probably be best ending irrespective.
Isn't it a similar convention to briefing people on privy council terms here?
I think that's a great idea. Those that host the energy infrastructure that benefits all of us should be rewarded, particularly if it sees the value of their property decrease.
Land Value Taxation would do away with this kind of complicated cherry-picking. If pylons reduce the value of your property, then your tax would fall.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
Nope. You can't say they passively supported Trump any more than they passively supported Biden. Indeed many of those who didn't vote would not have supported either main candidate (passively or otherwise) hence their decision not to vote.
If you really object to both Biden and Trump, what do you do? If you don't vote are you passively supporting both candidates?
Yes, you are passively supporting whatever the outcome is, as you decided - potentially for good reasons - to not participate directly and defer to the judgement of your fellow citizens rather than take part. Politicians don't respond to non-participation, they only respond to participation.
The objection here seems to be it equates non-voters to Trump voters, which is not the point I was making. The point was if you are going to judge the level of Trump support, of about half, you cannot then decide to add in the ones who did not bother to vote at all to lower that percentage of support to make it seem less of a big deal than it is.
People may disagree with my 'passive support' metric, but it is a lot sillier to me to say someone got around 50% in an election but let's pretend that doesn't matter so much because a lot of people didn't vote so really his support was 30%. It can be true, but it meaningless since the numbers who actually vote are what matters.
If there is no one worth voting for why vote....for example lib dems, labour cons....all basically carry on as we are....greens and reform absolute fruit bats.....who do I vote for to actually make a difference....answer is no one worth voting for. You may find it silly and that is your right but you think there is someone worth your vote millions absolutely think they are all banhammers totally unworthy of pissing on if they were on fire let alone voting for
Voters of virtue and worth and moral integrity look down on the pitiful inadequacy of the choice before them.
With decisive eloquence they dismiss the life projects of the party poodles, confident in their own incorruptability and relatively towering judgement.
Thank God such paragons will never dirty their alabaster hands in the swill of politics.
Yeah I agree with this. It's like "safe seats" which are seen as inviolable. Any party can win any seat.
If you don't vote you are your worst (political) enemy's bitch.
And you should forego your right to post on PB privileges.
I vote. I have never not voted. I either spoil my ballot or vote for an independent. Anyone who votes for the main parties and thinks they will do anything to improve the country except by pure accident is a fool.
NEW: Five of the billionaires who attended Donald Trump's inauguration have lost a combined $210 billion in wealth since then, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index
At one time some claimed that their health was adversely affected by living close to a pylon.
You couldn't pay me to live under a powerline
You wouldn't need to; there are statutory clearance distances, depending on voltage.
When I received PP for a 120 unit housing estate, there was a (10kv iirc) powerline across it. If we had not been able to make them move it, it would have been more like 80 houses.
At one time some claimed that their health was adversely affected by living close to a pylon.
You couldn't pay me to live under a powerline
Surely there is a sum that would tempt you? £1,000,000 maybe not but £10,000,000? With no draw down and an easy to get 8% a year that’s £80,000 a year for living under a power line. Not tempted? I’d bite your hand off.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
Nope. You can't say they passively supported Trump any more than they passively supported Biden. Indeed many of those who didn't vote would not have supported either main candidate (passively or otherwise) hence their decision not to vote.
If you really object to both Biden and Trump, what do you do? If you don't vote are you passively supporting both candidates?
Yes, you are passively supporting whatever the outcome is, as you decided - potentially for good reasons - to not participate directly and defer to the judgement of your fellow citizens rather than take part. Politicians don't respond to non-participation, they only respond to participation.
The objection here seems to be it equates non-voters to Trump voters, which is not the point I was making. The point was if you are going to judge the level of Trump support, of about half, you cannot then decide to add in the ones who did not bother to vote at all to lower that percentage of support to make it seem less of a big deal than it is.
People may disagree with my 'passive support' metric, but it is a lot sillier to me to say someone got around 50% in an election but let's pretend that doesn't matter so much because a lot of people didn't vote so really his support was 30%. It can be true, but it meaningless since the numbers who actually vote are what matters.
If there is no one worth voting for why vote....for example lib dems, labour cons....all basically carry on as we are....greens and reform absolute fruit bats.....who do I vote for to actually make a difference....answer is no one worth voting for. You may find it silly and that is your right but you think there is someone worth your vote millions absolutely think they are all banhammers totally unworthy of pissing on if they were on fire let alone voting for
Voters of virtue and worth and moral integrity look down on the pitiful inadequacy of the choice before them.
With decisive eloquence they dismiss the life projects of the party poodles, confident in their own incorruptability and relatively towering judgement.
Thank God such paragons will never dirty their alabaster hands in the swill of politics.
Yeah I agree with this. It's like "safe seats" which are seen as inviolable. Any party can win any seat.
If you don't vote you are your worst (political) enemy's bitch.
And you should forego your right to post on PB privileges.
I vote. I have never not voted. I either spoil my ballot or vote for an independent. Anyone who votes for the main parties and thinks they will do anything to improve the country except by pure accident is a fool.
It's pretty outrageous that Canada now has a PM that's not an MP (even if it will only be for a short time)
Could a political party get away with that here? Maybe there's still time for a Boris comeback?
PBers need a history lesson.
The Earl of Home waves.
Yes of course. But... that was 1963. Could that happen now?: Doubtful?
And the Conservatives ultimately lost the 1964 and 1966 general elections...
Depends, the country would approve if Lord Cameron became PM again.
Well he would now be a strong contender to replace Ed Davey as LD leader..after all he won most of the seats the LDs now hold in 2010 and 2015 and his 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD government was closer in policy to the LDs now than the Tories or Labour or Reform
The LD's could never win plenty of seats on austerity-associated ticket again, and they know that well. A separate centrist-tory party perhaps.
Not necessarily, the LDs have over 70 MPs and the majority of LD voters now voted Tory or LD in 2015 ie for austerity (except for the NHS and overseas aid), low tax, same sex marriage, tackling climate change and to stay in the EU.
Most of the centre left LDs voted Labour in 2015 and haven't gone back and now either still vote Labour or vote Green
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
At one time some claimed that their health was adversely affected by living close to a pylon.
You couldn't pay me to live under a powerline
You wouldn't need to; there are statutory clearance distances, depending on voltage.
When I received PP for a 120 unit housing estate, there was a (10kv iirc) powerline across it. If we had not been able to make them move it, it would have been more like 80 houses.
Yes, PP has been refused for developments near power lines. Professor Heinz Wolf (the great egg race guy) was an expert witness in at least one appeal
It's pretty outrageous that Canada now has a PM that's not an MP (even if it will only be for a short time)
Could a political party get away with that here? Maybe there's still time for a Boris comeback?
PBers need a history lesson.
The Earl of Home waves.
Yes of course. But... that was 1963. Could that happen now?: Doubtful?
And the Conservatives ultimately lost the 1964 and 1966 general elections...
Depends, the country would approve if Lord Cameron became PM again.
Well he would now be a strong contender to replace Ed Davey as LD leader..after all he won most of the seats the LDs now hold in 2010 and 2015 and his 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD government was closer in policy to the LDs now than the Tories or Labour or Reform
The LD's could never win plenty of seats on austerity-associated ticket again, and they know that well. A separate centrist-tory party perhaps.
Not necessarily, the majority of LD voters now voted Tory or LD in 2015 ie for austerity (except for the NHS and overseas aid), low tax, same sex marriage, tackling climate change and to stay in the EU.
Most of the centre left LDs voted Labour in 2015 and haven't gone back and now either still vote Labour or vote Green
I think it's the more the optics with those younger lib dems in rural and affluent seats. They're generally more left-of-centre than in the past, I think.
Per @POTUS directive, I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden "disinformation" letter. The President's Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden
I find it slightly weird that people in the US go on receiving confidential briefings after they've left office; it seems a strange practice that it would probably be best ending irrespective.
Isn't it a similar convention to briefing people on privy council terms here?
They're supposed to be a republic. Surely when you stop being President, or whatever, you should go back to being a private citizen
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
Were you in the 37.5% that voted for Brexit, just asking?
I was. I also said before the vote that if it went the other way I would absolutely accept the result and would not campaign for another vote.
More importantly, the day after the referendum PB kindly published an article from me saying that since the vote had been close and that, as you say, only 38% voted in favour, the resultant Brexit should try to encompass the views of as many people as possible including those how opposed it.
Unlike many people on here I do actually practice what I preach.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
My plan is that
1) RON (Re-Open Nominations) is a candidate in all elections. 2) All registered voters who haven't voted are counted as a vote for RON. 3) You can also explicitly vote for RON. 4) If RON wins, then the election is held again, and all the previous candidates are barred.
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
"The value of investments can go down as well as up".
Worrying about the value of people's savings is not valid reason to artificially prop up a share price. Indeed, diversification is supposed to mitigate the risk that a CEO randomly turns into a Nazi, so the index tracker is going its job in that respect.
It does not help however that the same individual has untrammelled power over the US government... but my European defence stocks are doing some good work.
How was Tesla artifically propped up ?
I bought BAE stock when Russia invaded Ukraine, done well.
You're making a fuss about Tesla's share price crashing and hurting Tesla investors. Tough shit, it's a free market and people can invest their money however they feel fit.
One of my favourite business quotes is Micheal Jordan saying "republicans buy sneakers too" and it's something that Elon Musk should be thinking about right now, he's alienating 50% of the population, yes the Republicans won the popular vote but only by a couple of million people. Almost 50% of the US and I'd say 75% of Europe aren't impressed by him or Trump and he's completely putting them off buying Teslas. People are free to choose not to buy them as long as he's in charge or until he resigns from the government and stops being a complete c***.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
I think we can only interpret non-voters and voters for no-hope parties as inscrutable though unenthusiastic in their view of the main parties. Personally, I'm chair of my CLP - it's not that I think the Government is wonderful, or approve of the sudden enthusiasm for heavy defence spending, but on balance they remain the most serious game in town. I've never considered being a Tory, Reform seem to me vulgar and unscrupulous, the LibDems too unreliable and unrealistic, and the Greens wildly unrealistic.
I wouldn't impute any particular views on you beyond what you've said, but it's perhaps fair to say that you seem to regard the main parties with exactly equal hostility, which seems to me less than helpful. But you've an absolute right to it, of course!
I think that is a very good summary of my views. But then you have known me for a good few years so already knew that was my opinion.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
My plan is that
1) RON (Re-Open Nominations) is a candidate in all elections. 2) All registered voters who haven't voted are counted as a vote for RON. 3) You can also explicitly vote for RON. 4) If RON wins, then the election is held again, and all the previous candidates are barred.
Apathy rules, OK!
I have never thought of that. That's a great idea. (even if I am not sure if you were serious)
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
"The value of investments can go down as well as up".
Worrying about the value of people's savings is not valid reason to artificially prop up a share price. Indeed, diversification is supposed to mitigate the risk that a CEO randomly turns into a Nazi, so the index tracker is going its job in that respect.
It does not help however that the same individual has untrammelled power over the US government... but my European defence stocks are doing some good work.
How was Tesla artifically propped up ?
I bought BAE stock when Russia invaded Ukraine, done well.
You're making a fuss about Tesla's share price crashing and hurting Tesla investors. Tough shit, it's a free market and people can invest their money however they feel fit.
One of my favourite business quotes is Micheal Jordan saying "republicans buy sneakers too" and it's something that Elon Musk should be thinking about right now, he's alienating 50% of the population, yes the Republicans won the popular vote but only by a couple of million people. Almost 50% of the US and I'd say 75% of Europe aren't impressed by him or Trump and he's completely putting them off buying Teslas. People are free to choose not to buy them as long as he's in charge or until he resigns from the government and stops being a complete c***.
People are also very likely to continue not buying them regardless of his position in Government on the basis that he is a complete c***.
Heck the story of Ratner says that unless you bin the management and a complete rebrand once people are put off a brand a lot of people are never going to purchase it..
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
It'll cover the cost of a few tinfoil hats - so there's that.
1.6p a week to encourage people to approve planning applications - I don't see a problem with that.
Heck the only people I can think would complain is someone like @BatteryCorrectHorse who believes that pylons are essential so no-one should have a say in where they are placed.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
Then they would have to rerun the election with some more palatable candidates. - Fuckwit.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
My plan is that
1) RON (Re-Open Nominations) is a candidate in all elections. 2) All registered voters who haven't voted are counted as a vote for RON. 3) You can also explicitly vote for RON. 4) If RON wins, then the election is held again, and all the previous candidates are barred.
Apathy rules, OK!
I have never thought of that. That's a great idea. (even if I am not sure if you were serious)
A Sir Humphrey and civil servants wet dream as they run the country indefinitely in the meantime
At one time some claimed that their health was adversely affected by living close to a pylon.
You couldn't pay me to live under a powerline
You wouldn't need to; there are statutory clearance distances, depending on voltage.
When I received PP for a 120 unit housing estate, there was a (10kv iirc) powerline across it. If we had not been able to make them move it, it would have been more like 80 houses.
Yes, PP has been refused for developments near power lines. Professor Heinz Wolf (the great egg race guy) was an expert witness in at least one appeal
It's interesting how unified Germany is, if you exclude the AfD supporters.
So basically Putin wants AfD, Le Pen or Melenchon, Reform and Confederation, Liberty and Independence wins in Europe and the GOP to stay in power in the USA
It's pretty outrageous that Canada now has a PM that's not an MP (even if it will only be for a short time)
Could a political party get away with that here? Maybe there's still time for a Boris comeback?
PBers need a history lesson.
The Earl of Home waves.
Yes of course. But... that was 1963. Could that happen now?: Doubtful?
And the Conservatives ultimately lost the 1964 and 1966 general elections...
Depends, the country would approve if Lord Cameron became PM again.
Well he would now be a strong contender to replace Ed Davey as LD leader..after all he won most of the seats the LDs now hold in 2010 and 2015 and his 2010 to 2015 Tory and LD government was closer in policy to the LDs now than the Tories or Labour or Reform
The LD's could never win plenty of seats on austerity-associated ticket again, and they know that well. A separate centrist-tory party perhaps.
Not necessarily, the majority of LD voters now voted Tory or LD in 2015 ie for austerity (except for the NHS and overseas aid), low tax, same sex marriage, tackling climate change and to stay in the EU.
Most of the centre left LDs voted Labour in 2015 and haven't gone back and now either still vote Labour or vote Green
I think it's the more the optics with those younger lib dems in rural and affluent seats. They're generally more left-of-centre than in the past, I think.
LD voters even in those seats were more left of centre under Charles Kennedy than they are now under Ed Davey
At one time some claimed that their health was adversely affected by living close to a pylon.
You couldn't pay me to live under a powerline
You wouldn't need to; there are statutory clearance distances, depending on voltage.
When I received PP for a 120 unit housing estate, there was a (10kv iirc) powerline across it. If we had not been able to make them move it, it would have been more like 80 houses.
Yes, PP has been refused for developments near power lines. Professor Heinz Wolf (the great egg race guy) was an expert witness in at least one appeal
It's a complex area to deal with .
The lawyers for the developers submitted "expert" testimony that the magnetic field strength measured onsite was below some arbitrary limit.
They were of course asked what the electric field strength was at the same point.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
My plan is that
1) RON (Re-Open Nominations) is a candidate in all elections. 2) All registered voters who haven't voted are counted as a vote for RON. 3) You can also explicitly vote for RON. 4) If RON wins, then the election is held again, and all the previous candidates are barred.
Apathy rules, OK!
I have never thought of that. That's a great idea. (even if I am not sure if you were serious)
Not seen that suggestion before, it does have a certain appeal, even if encouraging people to stand would seem tricky in such a situation.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
Then they would have to rerun the election with some more palatable candidates. - Fuckwit.
You mean keep changing the candidates until there's one you like.
Of all the people to display such mind-boggling naivety and idiocy about a modern democracy I hadn't thought you would be in the top one.
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
"The value of investments can go down as well as up".
Worrying about the value of people's savings is not valid reason to artificially prop up a share price. Indeed, diversification is supposed to mitigate the risk that a CEO randomly turns into a Nazi, so the index tracker is going its job in that respect.
It does not help however that the same individual has untrammelled power over the US government... but my European defence stocks are doing some good work.
How was Tesla artifically propped up ?
I bought BAE stock when Russia invaded Ukraine, done well.
You're making a fuss about Tesla's share price crashing and hurting Tesla investors. Tough shit, it's a free market and people can invest their money however they feel fit.
One of my favourite business quotes is Micheal Jordan saying "republicans buy sneakers too" and it's something that Elon Musk should be thinking about right now, he's alienating 50% of the population, yes the Republicans won the popular vote but only by a couple of million people. Almost 50% of the US and I'd say 75% of Europe aren't impressed by him or Trump and he's completely putting them off buying Teslas. People are free to choose not to buy them as long as he's in charge or until he resigns from the government and stops being a complete c***.
Worse than that: it's precisely the kind of virtue-signalling, aspirational, high-income, centrist Dad that goes for a Tesla who he is pissing off (particularly in the UK). If you're going to drive a car that shouts arsehole, might as well go for a BMW/Audi.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
There'd always be somebody who drew the cock and balls againt a candidate.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
Then they would have to rerun the election with some more palatable candidates. - Fuckwit.
You mean keep changing the candidates until there's one you like.
Of all the people to display such mind-boggling naivety and idiocy about a modern democracy I hadn't thought you would be in the top one.
Or perhaps thinking about it maybe I had.
It's not about what I like, its about what the voters like.
The alternative is you force them to vote for parties and candidates they don't like. I think that is basically a dictatorship.
The more I see of your posting, the more I realise that is actually what you would prefer.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
There'd always be somebody who drew the cock and balls againt a candidate.
I enjoy when people learn that doing so does not (usually) count as a spoiled ballot, even some people in politics getting surprised.
It'll cover the cost of a few tinfoil hats - so there's that.
1.6p a week to encourage people to approve planning applications - I don't see a problem with that.
Heck the only people I can think would complain is someone like @BatteryCorrectHorse who believes that pylons are essential so no-one should have a say in where they are placed.
I'd make it so lucrative that people/councils were actively bidding for new pylons, turbines, solar, nuclear (and prisons etc etc). Link it to council tax bills and/or funding.
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
It'll cover the cost of a few tinfoil hats - so there's that.
1.6p a week to encourage people to approve planning applications - I don't see a problem with that.
Heck the only people I can think would complain is someone like @BatteryCorrectHorse who believes that pylons are essential so no-one should have a say in where they are placed.
What about those of us who think curtain twitchers should be told to mind their own business and nobody should get a say where anything is placed?
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
There'd always be somebody who drew the cock and balls againt a candidate.
We'd still have MPs/
I mean the current voting system is rubbish. But as we are aware it's better than any other method.
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
I assume you would approve of the penalties for treason then !!!
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
Then they would have to rerun the election with some more palatable candidates. - Fuckwit.
You mean keep changing the candidates until there's one you like.
Of all the people to display such mind-boggling naivety and idiocy about a modern democracy I hadn't thought you would be in the top one.
Or perhaps thinking about it maybe I had.
It's not about what I like, its about what the voters like.
The alternative is you force them to vote for parties and candidates they don't like. I think that is basically a dictatorship.
The more I see of your posting, the more I realise that is actually what you would prefer.
The more I see your postings the more I realise that you haven't the first clue about how politics works. The voters en masse will disagree about just about anything and our current system is among the least bad at making a fist of representing our views.
But why I am talking about this to someone who wants some kind of fantasy Narnia type of politics I have no idea. Until you talk sense about this I'm afraid I'm adding you to the list.
On this topic, that said, so you still have a shot at a response from me on other issues.
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
I assume you would approve of the penalties for treason then !!!
I wouldn't get a say either way, the King had supreme power and only 1% of the population ie the wealthiest property owners could vote to elect MPs and the House of Lords was solely aristocrats and bishops
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
Your preference for the 16th century needs to be a bit better informed historically. None of this new-fangled hydraulic lifting bridges stuff then.
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
I suspect telling them they are lucky not to be executed may not cause them to reconsider their republican attitudes.
Tesla seems to have closed down about 15 and a half per cént.
Which ironically is also what DOGE have done so far.
How did the Ministry of Administrative Affairs get so out of hand? Wouldn't have happened in Sir Humphrey's day.
I do sometimes picture - on the back of Elon's latest wheeze-of-the-day - Sir Humphrey rubbing his hands with glee at the thought of the inquiries, the procedures, the committees, the endless process that will be the fall-out of it all.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
Then they would have to rerun the election with some more palatable candidates. - Fuckwit.
You mean keep changing the candidates until there's one you like.
Of all the people to display such mind-boggling naivety and idiocy about a modern democracy I hadn't thought you would be in the top one.
Or perhaps thinking about it maybe I had.
It's not about what I like, its about what the voters like.
The alternative is you force them to vote for parties and candidates they don't like. I think that is basically a dictatorship.
The more I see of your posting, the more I realise that is actually what you would prefer.
If they are so fussy they can't find one of the Greens, Labour, the LDs, Tories or Reform close enough to their views they could form their own party and stand for parliament themselves
It's been my experience when I come across one of the "I won't vote for any of them, there'll all be same" brigade, I immediately counter with "for what would you vote?".
Unfortunately, the responses to that seem to be contradictory nonsense in most cases - the most obvious is the old "cut my taxes but increase the money for schools and hospitals" - well, yes, but how do you do that if you can't grow the economy and could you do it even if you did?
It's the same for those who advocate the forced repatriation (now known as re-migration) of immigrants - the questions begin with who, where, how and who pays for it?
Some come up with "tax the rich until the pips squeak" - okay, who are "the rich" and what rate would you consider makes "the pips squeak" - we could try the 98% marginal rate we "enjoyed" in the 1970s but given how the world has changed, would that work?
The truth is no one has "the answers" - well, certainly, no easy answers. Yet we are at least given a say (of sorts) in how our society works and how our country is run. Too many in the world get no meaningful say at all yet we have more nonsense about "strong" leadership. Strong leaders often get it wrong - I'd argue usually to be honest - but you can't tell them they are wrong because in many parts of the world the consequences of so doing are extremely unpleasant.
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
Your preference for the 16th century needs to be a bit better informed historically. None of this new-fangled hydraulic lifting bridges stuff then.
If it was 1925 at least they could have just sent in the tanks. Saved a lot of bother.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
That's the way it should be.
Abolish the requirement for planning permission. Cut the red tape.
If someone wants to build a power pylon, and they have the land owners consent, they should be able to send the workers in to get it done immediately.
No consultations, planning, back and forth for years of wrangling. No Councillors meddling.
Deregulate and let people actually get stuff done.
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
I suspect telling them they are lucky not to be executed may not cause them to reconsider their republican attitudes.
They wouldn't change them anyway, they are just lucky to be living in an England and UK more tolerant of free speech than centuries ago
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
"The value of investments can go down as well as up".
Worrying about the value of people's savings is not valid reason to artificially prop up a share price. Indeed, diversification is supposed to mitigate the risk that a CEO randomly turns into a Nazi, so the index tracker is going its job in that respect.
It does not help however that the same individual has untrammelled power over the US government... but my European defence stocks are doing some good work.
How was Tesla artifically propped up ?
I bought BAE stock when Russia invaded Ukraine, done well.
You're making a fuss about Tesla's share price crashing and hurting Tesla investors. Tough shit, it's a free market and people can invest their money however they feel fit.
One of my favourite business quotes is Micheal Jordan saying "republicans buy sneakers too" and it's something that Elon Musk should be thinking about right now, he's alienating 50% of the population, yes the Republicans won the popular vote but only by a couple of million people. Almost 50% of the US and I'd say 75% of Europe aren't impressed by him or Trump and he's completely putting them off buying Teslas. People are free to choose not to buy them as long as he's in charge or until he resigns from the government and stops being a complete c***.
Worse than that: it's precisely the kind of virtue-signalling, aspirational, high-income, centrist Dad that goes for a Tesla who he is pissing off (particularly in the UK). If you're going to drive a car that shouts arsehole, might as well go for a BMW/Audi.
Some tonnage of green cheese in that response. You not happy with your honda jazz
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
"The value of investments can go down as well as up".
Worrying about the value of people's savings is not valid reason to artificially prop up a share price. Indeed, diversification is supposed to mitigate the risk that a CEO randomly turns into a Nazi, so the index tracker is going its job in that respect.
It does not help however that the same individual has untrammelled power over the US government... but my European defence stocks are doing some good work.
How was Tesla artifically propped up ?
I bought BAE stock when Russia invaded Ukraine, done well.
You're making a fuss about Tesla's share price crashing and hurting Tesla investors. Tough shit, it's a free market and people can invest their money however they feel fit.
One of my favourite business quotes is Micheal Jordan saying "republicans buy sneakers too" and it's something that Elon Musk should be thinking about right now, he's alienating 50% of the population, yes the Republicans won the popular vote but only by a couple of million people. Almost 50% of the US and I'd say 75% of Europe aren't impressed by him or Trump and he's completely putting them off buying Teslas. People are free to choose not to buy them as long as he's in charge or until he resigns from the government and stops being a complete c***.
The wider problem is that Tesla, and to a much lesser but significant extent, Spacex, owe their large valuations to faith in Musk. The former is valued insanely for a car company - most are valued at 5-6 times revenue, Tesla has been as high as 130. If you treat it as a tech company, that's around 30 times revenue - which it's still well above. Essentially that valuation is a bet on Musk. Both his alleged genius and closeness to the US government.
Add in the fact Tesla was already facing significant headwinds as a carmaker - competitors catching up, reductions in subsidies, potential trade wars, even before the recent boycotts and protests, and you have a recipe for a sell-off. Its astronomical value was based on vibes, and the vibes have gone bad.
Essentially even now Tesla's shareprice is a bet on it being able to get to Full Self Driving first, do it better than its competitors, and being able to produce its Optimus robots. But there's already some evidence it's behind on these - its FSD doesn't use LiDAR, which every other FSD system does - some of which look to be ahead. WayMo for example, or in China. There Tesla just got regulatory approval for its old self-driving system (which isn't exactly perfect) but is far more expensive than Chinese homegrown ones with access to more data there. The Optimus robots still appeared to be remotely controlled at a recent demo.
So basically, unlike a normal company - where negative publicity might hit share prices a bit, but the fundamentals will still be there, Tesla is a bet on Musk living up to some pretty wild promises - when he's missed loads of deadlines.
So if you think he's completely lost the plot, can no longer be trusted, and/or is liable to fall out with Trump, a sell-off is pretty rational as well as moral.
Does the Sentencing Council have the authority absent legislation to continue to apply its rules on courts? Presumably that is what parliament permitted when it set it up?
Yes it does. But it is still a Government agency, and it's notable that it feels entitled to tell the Minister to piss off. She must follow through with her threat to legislate to remove the final decision concerning the guidelines away from the sentencing council or be a laughing stock.
The letter from the sentencing council is really quite extraordinary - to suggest that the Government should not seek to control the length of sentences. How does an unelected bureau suppose itself to have greater legitimacy than the elected Government? If this stands, it's an admission of defeat at the hands of the guangocracy at the first whiff of grapeshot.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
That's the way it should be.
Abolish the requirement for planning permission. Cut the red tape.
If someone wants to build a power pylon, and they have the land owners consent, they should be able to send the workers in to get it done immediately.
No consultations, planning, back and forth for years of wrangling. No Councillors meddling.
Deregulate and let people actually get stuff done.
Hard to believe you could have got any crazier , but you are locking up crazy nowadays.
Does the Sentencing Council have the authority absent legislation to continue to apply its rules on courts? Presumably that is what parliament permitted when it set it up?
Yes it does. But it is still a Government agency, and it's notable that it feels entitled to tell the Minister to piss off. She must follow through with her threat to legislate to remove the final decision concerning the guidelines away from the sentencing council or be a laughing stock.
The letter from the sentencing council is really quite extraordinary - to suggest that the Government should not seek to control the length of sentences. How does an unelected bureau suppose itself to have greater legitimacy than the elected Government? If this stands, it's an admission of defeat at the hands of the guangocracy at the first whiff of grapeshot.
I don't disagree. There may be a process to be followed in a situation where such an agency has been created to be at arm's length from government, careful consideration of the situation, but the implication among some seems to be that parliament and government have no legitimate role to play at all, which seems extraordinary.
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
"The value of investments can go down as well as up".
Worrying about the value of people's savings is not valid reason to artificially prop up a share price. Indeed, diversification is supposed to mitigate the risk that a CEO randomly turns into a Nazi, so the index tracker is going its job in that respect.
It does not help however that the same individual has untrammelled power over the US government... but my European defence stocks are doing some good work.
How was Tesla artifically propped up ?
I bought BAE stock when Russia invaded Ukraine, done well.
You're making a fuss about Tesla's share price crashing and hurting Tesla investors. Tough shit, it's a free market and people can invest their money however they feel fit.
One of my favourite business quotes is Micheal Jordan saying "republicans buy sneakers too" and it's something that Elon Musk should be thinking about right now, he's alienating 50% of the population, yes the Republicans won the popular vote but only by a couple of million people. Almost 50% of the US and I'd say 75% of Europe aren't impressed by him or Trump and he's completely putting them off buying Teslas. People are free to choose not to buy them as long as he's in charge or until he resigns from the government and stops being a complete c***.
The wider problem is that Tesla, and to a much lesser but significant extent, Spacex, owe their large valuations to faith in Musk. The former is valued insanely for a car company - most are valued at 5-6 times revenue, Tesla has been as high as 130. If you treat it as a tech company, that's around 30 times revenue - which it's still well above. Essentially that valuation is a bet on Musk. Both his alleged genius and closeness to the US government.
Add in the fact Tesla was already facing significant headwinds as a carmaker - competitors catching up, reductions in subsidies, potential trade wars, even before the recent boycotts and protests, and you have a recipe for a sell-off. Its astronomical value was based on vibes, and the vibes have gone bad.
Essentially even now Tesla's shareprice is a bet on it being able to get to Full Self Driving first, do it better than its competitors, and being able to produce its Optimus robots. But there's already some evidence it's behind on these - its FSD doesn't use LiDAR, which every other FSD system does - some of which look to be ahead. WayMo for example, or in China. There Tesla just got regulatory approval for its old self-driving system (which isn't exactly perfect) but is far more expensive than Chinese homegrown ones with access to more data there. The Optimus robots still appeared to be remotely controlled at a recent demo.
So basically, unlike a normal company - where negative publicity might hit share prices a bit, but the fundamentals will still be there, Tesla is a bet on Musk living up to some pretty wild promises - when he's missed loads of deadlines.
So if you think he's completely lost the plot, can no longer be trusted, and/or is liable to fall out with Trump, a sell-off is pretty rational as well as moral.
Worth noting his net worth was, I think, a 'mere' 20-30 billion only 5 years ago. It, ahem, rocketed up at an amazing rate.
It's been my experience when I come across one of the "I won't vote for any of them, there'll all be same" brigade, I immediately counter with "for what would you vote?".
Unfortunately, the responses to that seem to be contradictory nonsense in most cases - the most obvious is the old "cut my taxes but increase the money for schools and hospitals" - well, yes, but how do you do that if you can't grow the economy and could you do it even if you did?
It's the same for those who advocate the forced repatriation (now known as re-migration) of immigrants - the questions begin with who, where, how and who pays for it?
Some come up with "tax the rich until the pips squeak" - okay, who are "the rich" and what rate would you consider makes "the pips squeak" - we could try the 98% marginal rate we "enjoyed" in the 1970s but given how the world has changed, would that work?
The truth is no one has "the answers" - well, certainly, no easy answers. Yet we are at least given a say (of sorts) in how our society works and how our country is run. Too many in the world get no meaningful say at all yet we have more nonsense about "strong" leadership. Strong leaders often get it wrong - I'd argue usually to be honest - but you can't tell them they are wrong because in many parts of the world the consequences of so doing are extremely unpleasant.
We could very easily grow the economy by ending the ability of people to prevent people from growing the economy.
If someone wants to build a power pylon, or factory, or house, or shop, or anything bloody else they should be able to do so without years of planning, without asking for permission.
JFDI. Just fucking do it.
End of story. Then we might actually have some growth, when people can actually do stuff instead of having an army of people standing in the way tutting.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
Nope. You can't say they passively supported Trump any more than they passively supported Biden. Indeed many of those who didn't vote would not have supported either main candidate (passively or otherwise) hence their decision not to vote.
If you really object to both Biden and Trump, what do you do? If you don't vote are you passively supporting both candidates?
Yes, you are passively supporting whatever the outcome is, as you decided - potentially for good reasons - to not participate directly and defer to the judgement of your fellow citizens rather than take part. Politicians don't respond to non-participation, they only respond to participation.
The objection here seems to be it equates non-voters to Trump voters, which is not the point I was making. The point was if you are going to judge the level of Trump support, of about half, you cannot then decide to add in the ones who did not bother to vote at all to lower that percentage of support to make it seem less of a big deal than it is.
People may disagree with my 'passive support' metric, but it is a lot sillier to me to say someone got around 50% in an election but let's pretend that doesn't matter so much because a lot of people didn't vote so really his support was 30%. It can be true, but it meaningless since the numbers who actually vote are what matters.
If there is no one worth voting for why vote....for example lib dems, labour cons....all basically carry on as we are....greens and reform absolute fruit bats.....who do I vote for to actually make a difference....answer is no one worth voting for. You may find it silly and that is your right but you think there is someone worth your vote millions absolutely think they are all banhammers totally unworthy of pissing on if they were on fire let alone voting for
Voters of virtue and worth and moral integrity look down on the pitiful inadequacy of the choice before them.
With decisive eloquence they dismiss the life projects of the party poodles, confident in their own incorruptability and relatively towering judgement.
Thank God such paragons will never dirty their alabaster hands in the swill of politics.
Yeah I agree with this. It's like "safe seats" which are seen as inviolable. Any party can win any seat.
If you don't vote you are your worst (political) enemy's bitch.
And you should forego your right to post on PB privileges.
I vote. I have never not voted. I either spoil my ballot or vote for an independent. Anyone who votes for the main parties and thinks they will do anything to improve the country except by pure accident is a fool.
But if your last paragraph WERE true, it would also be true that anyone who votes independent and thinks they will improve the country.... is an even bigger fool. Political parties are there to aggregate ideas and produce some elementary coherence. Voters on the whole therefore know much more about what party candidates stand for than independents. That is a positive.
Party candidates and independents are all flawed and limited. After all they are human beings; I assume you're a human being. If you have any self-awareness you will know you are error-prone and have numerous personal flaws.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
Talking to a German this evening. Slightly depressing. “Is it true you British are really scared of war with Putin?” “Think of all the constructive things you could spend money on rather than armaments”.
Took all my self control not to say “well, we’ve been here before”.
A lot of people seem to think that we can’t fire any nuclear missiles without US permission so he could “announce” that we have developed a fully independent nuclear deterrent.
You do realise TESLA is a key component of many peoples investment portfolios as well as index trackers and it falling just simply goes to the detriment of many people around the world.
You probably don’t give a shit about others, to be fair, as long as the libs own Musk.
I don't agree with the beating up of Rochdale over his YouTube channel but anything we can do to punish MAGA adjacent corporations is OK by me. Quietly cancelling my Amazon Prime membership however useful might be one small pain in Bezos's side. If enough cancel it will be a massive pain in his arse, and he might think twice about turning WaPo into the National Enquirer.
Forty years ago the Eliza Tinsley company broke South African sanctions and provided the Apartheid Government with chains and manacles to shackle Nelson Mandela to his cell wall in Roben Island. I have never subsequently bought any of their products. Bastards!
Probably a waste of time because it's not tackling the root causes of why we've ended up where we are in politics.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
Especially when anyone with a vested interest in preventing growth (which is many people) can engage in years of lawfare by tying up projects in judicial reviews and objections even if others don't object or accept the money.
Solve the real problem, don't try to by-pass it. We need to abolish planning permission, not try to bribe people into not objecting.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
I don't. I refuse to vote for any of the main partis in UK elections as I think they are all scumbags. That doesn't mean I support any of them. Exactly the opposite. Counting non voters as supporting the winning side is so dumb it is practically Trumpian in its idiocy.
If they are all scumbags, and I find it hard to disagree, what is the remedy?
In the meantime I'll vote for the sensible, and hold my nose.
We need a none of the above option - preferably with compulsory voting.
Dolt. What would happen if everyone voted for none of the above.
Then they would have to rerun the election with some more palatable candidates. - Fuckwit.
You mean keep changing the candidates until there's one you like.
Of all the people to display such mind-boggling naivety and idiocy about a modern democracy I hadn't thought you would be in the top one.
Or perhaps thinking about it maybe I had.
It's not about what I like, its about what the voters like.
The alternative is you force them to vote for parties and candidates they don't like. I think that is basically a dictatorship.
The more I see of your posting, the more I realise that is actually what you would prefer.
The more I see your postings the more I realise that you haven't the first clue about how politics works. The voters en masse will disagree about just about anything and our current system is among the least bad at making a fist of representing our views.
But why I am talking about this to someone who wants some kind of fantasy Narnia type of politics I have no idea. Until you talk sense about this I'm afraid I'm adding you to the list. On this topic, that said, so you still have a shot at a response from me on other issues.
What is really funny is you are so fucking stupid you don't realise that a none of the above option is how votes are run in many other democracies around the world.
Canada, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain all have a None of the Above or blank paper option. In the UK the Green Party advocates adding a NOTA choice to all ballots.
Heard Nathan Vance on PM this evening. A cousin of the VP, he has been fighting for Ukraine in recent years. Not only is the wrong Vance in the White House, it also reminded me that there are many, many Americans who are decent, moderate people that we have so much in common with. No matter how much Trump pisses us off, and he will, we need to remember that.
Most Americans do not appear to want this imperialistic aggrandisement. They want the southern border controlled and a decent living.
And yet most Americans voted for Trump, the man who got a crowd to attack Congress and threaten to hang his VP. It is a conundrum.
Actually that is not true as I am sure you must know.
Turnout as a percentage of Voting Age Population was 59% Of those 59%, Trump got 49.8% of the vote.
So the actual % of Voting Age Population that voted for Trump was 29.4% - 77.3 million people out of a total population of an estimated 337 million.
Eh, if people didn't show up I count that as passive support for whomever ends up winning.
Nope. You can't say they passively supported Trump any more than they passively supported Biden. Indeed many of those who didn't vote would not have supported either main candidate (passively or otherwise) hence their decision not to vote.
If you really object to both Biden and Trump, what do you do? If you don't vote are you passively supporting both candidates?
Yes, you are passively supporting whatever the outcome is, as you decided - potentially for good reasons - to not participate directly and defer to the judgement of your fellow citizens rather than take part. Politicians don't respond to non-participation, they only respond to participation.
The objection here seems to be it equates non-voters to Trump voters, which is not the point I was making. The point was if you are going to judge the level of Trump support, of about half, you cannot then decide to add in the ones who did not bother to vote at all to lower that percentage of support to make it seem less of a big deal than it is.
People may disagree with my 'passive support' metric, but it is a lot sillier to me to say someone got around 50% in an election but let's pretend that doesn't matter so much because a lot of people didn't vote so really his support was 30%. It can be true, but it meaningless since the numbers who actually vote are what matters.
If there is no one worth voting for why vote....for example lib dems, labour cons....all basically carry on as we are....greens and reform absolute fruit bats.....who do I vote for to actually make a difference....answer is no one worth voting for. You may find it silly and that is your right but you think there is someone worth your vote millions absolutely think they are all banhammers totally unworthy of pissing on if they were on fire let alone voting for
Voters of virtue and worth and moral integrity look down on the pitiful inadequacy of the choice before them.
With decisive eloquence they dismiss the life projects of the party poodles, confident in their own incorruptability and relatively towering judgement.
Thank God such paragons will never dirty their alabaster hands in the swill of politics.
Yeah I agree with this. It's like "safe seats" which are seen as inviolable. Any party can win any seat.
If you don't vote you are your worst (political) enemy's bitch.
And you should forego your right to post on PB privileges.
I vote. I have never not voted. I either spoil my ballot or vote for an independent. Anyone who votes for the main parties and thinks they will do anything to improve the country except by pure accident is a fool.
But if your last paragraph WERE true, it would also be true that anyone who votes independent and thinks they will improve the country.... is an even bigger fool. Political parties are there to aggregate ideas and produce some elementary coherence. Voters on the whole therefore know much more about what party candidates stand for than independents. That is a positive.
Party candidates and independents are all flawed and limited. After all they are human beings; I assume you're a human being. If you have any self-awareness you will know you are error-prone and have numerous personal flaws.
Does this apply to all old pylons, coal tips, substations, power stations (thermal, solar, wind or whatever) and other general power infrastructure, or just new pylons in the south of England?
New infrastructure which needs to be built. And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
Why only new infrastructure?
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
Because that's what had we need and we don't have unlimited funds. Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Its pretty insane to keep a metric shitton of red tape then think you can cut through the red tape by bribing people not to object.
Especially when anyone with a vested interest in preventing growth (which is many people) can engage in years of lawfare by tying up projects in judicial reviews and objections even if others don't object or accept the money.
Solve the real problem, don't try to by-pass it. We need to abolish planning permission, not try to bribe people into not objecting.
Shitton is a word like ballache. Pronounced differently in my mind to how people would wish it pronounced.
(The former like a humdrum village/town in Bedfordshire; the latter like a type of Lamborghini.)
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
They are utterly pathetic, shouting at the royal family and attendees at a Commonwealth service in a house of God is disgraceful. They could stand for Parliament as pro republic candidates but refuse.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
Your preference for the 16th century needs to be a bit better informed historically. None of this new-fangled hydraulic lifting bridges stuff then.
If it was 1925 at least they could have just sent in the tanks. Saved a lot of bother.
Not gentlemanly enough. No horses, see. Especially for a worldview that thinks the squire and parson (or indeed squarson) controlling the entire life of the village 1725 style is [edit] the bees' knees.
Comments
again, and they know that well. A separate centrist-tory party perhaps.
And Johnny came home with a gift for me
He said "I bought it for cos I love you"
And I bought for you cos it's your birthday too"
He was so very nice
He was so very kind
To think of me
At this point in time
@bloomberg.com
NEW: Five of the billionaires who attended Donald Trump's inauguration have lost a combined $210 billion in wealth since then, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index
When I received PP for a 120 unit housing estate, there was a (10kv iirc) powerline across it. If we had not been able to make them move it, it would have been more like 80 houses.
Most of the centre left LDs voted Labour in 2015 and haven't gone back and now either still vote Labour or vote Green
More importantly, the day after the referendum PB kindly published an article from me saying that since the vote had been close and that, as you say, only 38% voted in favour, the resultant Brexit should try to encompass the views of as many people as possible including those how opposed it.
Unlike many people on here I do actually practice what I preach.
1) RON (Re-Open Nominations) is a candidate in all elections.
2) All registered voters who haven't voted are counted as a vote for RON.
3) You can also explicitly vote for RON.
4) If RON wins, then the election is held again, and all the previous candidates are barred.
Apathy rules, OK!
Heck the story of Ratner says that unless you bin the management and a complete rebrand once people are put off a brand a lot of people are never going to purchase it..
Heck the only people I can think would complain is someone like @BatteryCorrectHorse who believes that pylons are essential so no-one should have a say in where they are placed.
They were of course asked what the electric field strength was at the same point.
Ummmmmm.......
Of all the people to display such mind-boggling naivety and idiocy about a modern democracy I hadn't thought you would be in the top one.
Or perhaps thinking about it maybe I had.
We'd still have MPs/
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gdwgjkk1no
"
US stocks plunge as fears grow over economic slowdown
The Nasdaq sank by 4.0% at the close of trading, its largest single-day loss since 2022, and there were heavy losses on other markets.
Tesla shares fell about 15.4%, while chipmaker Nvidia was down more than 5%.
It comes after Trump said the US economy was in a period of transition, after he was asked about concerns over a potential recession.
"
Believe it or not, this portrayal of the King as a huge Tyrannosaurus Rex has been done by people who disapprove of monarchy and think it makes him look bad.
https://nitter.poast.org/s8mb/status/1899087876035342516#m
IDK man, I feel like there are tons of good arguments for republicanism (less so Republicanism thesedays), but they make odd choices sometimes.
The alternative is you force them to vote for parties and candidates they don't like. I think that is basically a dictatorship.
The more I see of your posting, the more I realise that is actually what you would prefer.
They are lucky this is 2025 not 1525 or 1725 as otherwise they would be facing beheading on Tower Hill for treason and their heads displayed on pikes on Tower Bridge
And no, it won't just be in the south of England.
Like it if not, it makes sense.
@kaitlancollins
Elon Musk tells Larry Kudlow he expects to continue in his role for another year. "Yeah, I think so."
Not your land? Not your choice.
Nobody paid compensation for this stuff in the past (other than the wayleave to the immediate landowner).
But why I am talking about this to someone who wants some kind of fantasy Narnia type of politics I have no idea. Until you talk sense about this I'm afraid I'm adding you to the list.
On this topic, that said, so you still have a shot at a response from me on other issues.
Unfortunately, the responses to that seem to be contradictory nonsense in most cases - the most obvious is the old "cut my taxes but increase the money for schools and hospitals" - well, yes, but how do you do that if you can't grow the economy and could you do it even if you did?
It's the same for those who advocate the forced repatriation (now known as re-migration) of immigrants - the questions begin with who, where, how and who pays for it?
Some come up with "tax the rich until the pips squeak" - okay, who are "the rich" and what rate would you consider makes "the pips squeak" - we could try the 98% marginal rate we "enjoyed" in the 1970s but given how the world has changed, would that work?
The truth is no one has "the answers" - well, certainly, no easy answers. Yet we are at least given a say (of sorts) in how our society works and how our country is run. Too many in the world get no meaningful say at all yet we have more nonsense about "strong" leadership. Strong leaders often get it wrong - I'd argue usually to be honest - but you can't tell them they are wrong because in many parts of the world the consequences of so doing are extremely unpleasant.
Abolish the requirement for planning permission. Cut the red tape.
If someone wants to build a power pylon, and they have the land owners consent, they should be able to send the workers in to get it done immediately.
No consultations, planning, back and forth for years of wrangling. No Councillors meddling.
Deregulate and let people actually get stuff done.
Musk: There was a massive cyber attack to try and bring down X with ip addresses originating in the Ukraine area.
Add in the fact Tesla was already facing significant headwinds as a carmaker - competitors catching up, reductions in subsidies, potential trade wars, even before the recent boycotts and protests, and you have a recipe for a sell-off. Its astronomical value was based on vibes, and the vibes have gone bad.
Essentially even now Tesla's shareprice is a bet on it being able to get to Full Self Driving first, do it better than its competitors, and being able to produce its Optimus robots. But there's already some evidence it's behind on these - its FSD doesn't use LiDAR, which every other FSD system does - some of which look to be ahead. WayMo for example, or in China. There Tesla just got regulatory approval for its old self-driving system (which isn't exactly perfect) but is far more expensive than Chinese homegrown ones with access to more data there. The Optimus robots still appeared to be remotely controlled at a recent demo.
So basically, unlike a normal company - where negative publicity might hit share prices a bit, but the fundamentals will still be there, Tesla is a bet on Musk living up to some pretty wild promises - when he's missed loads of deadlines.
So if you think he's completely lost the plot, can no longer be trusted, and/or is liable to fall out with Trump, a sell-off is pretty rational as well as moral.
The letter from the sentencing council is really quite extraordinary - to suggest that the Government should not seek to control the length of sentences. How does an unelected bureau suppose itself to have greater legitimacy than the elected Government? If this stands, it's an admission of defeat at the hands of the guangocracy at the first whiff of grapeshot.
Who are they, exactly?
Dark storm team claim ownership of the attacks, not Ukrainian (and likely linked to Russia according to this article)
https://www.newsweek.com/x-twitter-outage-dark-storm-live-updates-2042333
Treason of the highest order.
Will America wake up in time?
If someone wants to build a power pylon, or factory, or house, or shop, or anything bloody else they should be able to do so without years of planning, without asking for permission.
JFDI. Just fucking do it.
End of story. Then we might actually have some growth, when people can actually do stuff instead of having an army of people standing in the way tutting.
Well you might have a better idea if you hadn't closed down the cyberattack counter measures for anything coming from Russia.
Political parties are there to aggregate ideas and produce some elementary coherence. Voters on the whole therefore know much more about what party candidates stand for than independents. That is a positive.
Party candidates and independents are all flawed and limited. After all they are human beings; I assume you're a human being. If you have any self-awareness you will know you are error-prone and have numerous
personal flaws.
Cut some slack to politicians.
Unfair ? Sure.
But fairer than not building anything.
Or perhaps GCHQ. Not so far away.
Took all my self control not to say “well, we’ve been here before”.
A lot of people seem to think that we can’t fire any nuclear missiles without US permission so he could “announce” that we have developed a fully independent nuclear deterrent.
Especially when anyone with a vested interest in preventing growth (which is many people) can engage in years of lawfare by tying up projects in judicial reviews and objections even if others don't object or accept the money.
Solve the real problem, don't try to by-pass it. We need to abolish planning permission, not try to bribe people into not objecting.
Canada, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain all have a None of the Above or blank paper option. In the UK the Green Party advocates adding a NOTA choice to all ballots.
(The former like a humdrum village/town in Bedfordshire; the latter like a type of Lamborghini.)