On domestic politics, Starner's civil servuce reforms may be very different in ideological origins from Musk's, Trump's, and Thiel's, but echoing the Anerican techno-right's rhetoric of "disruption", as I heard from someone quoted in the government yesterday, is a real hostage to fortune.
Disruption, there, could turn into disaster.
It's just a risk tolerance question. I guess the Civil Service is set up to reduce risk as far as possible, and is moulded in that image with relatively low salaries, great pensions and job security. Those conditions attract people with low tolerance for risk, so you get a virtuous (vicious?) cycle.
Do we really want a disruptive Civil Service? Part of the attraction of the UK is a rock solid set of conventions, laws, taxes etc etc. Just look at the effect of Trump's tariffs on business confidence. Perhaps we should leave it to the private sector to hurry things along, and think tanks to agitate for public sector reform.
Is the intention to create a "disruptive" Civil Service, though ? Or just a modestly more efficient one ?
I would say we need an evolving, adapting Civil Service.
One trying to get a few percent better, every year, continuously.
This is Murican exceptionalism. What's right for Georgia must be right for anywhere, right? So build ladder frame massive trucks with minimal safety features and massive low power high consumption V8s under the hood. Ain't no replacement for displacement, right?
They are not really 'low' power. All of the V8s in the Big Three (F150, Silverado, Ram) are 350hp+.
I think they'd sell well in the UK if the OEMs were interested in RHD markets (which they are not) and the UK altered its regulatory environment so they could get type approval (which the UK won't).
I don't think that's quite right. There were moves to gear up imports significantly some time ago, but I think tax changes to remove at the budget the loopholes the last Conservative Government left in have headed most of it off at the pass, though it does not go far enough. The changes come in on April 1st 2025 iirc.
It's also the case the USA imposes a tariff of 25% on pickup trucks imported from outside (Canada, Mexico possibly exempt under USMCA). It's called the Chicken Tax ** and it has it's 50th anniversary this year - imposed by Lyndon B Johnson in a dispute over eggs, and kept alive by the auto-manufacturers since through lobbying. *
We should reciprocate that, and apply it to Individual Imports too. Personally I'd go a little further and compulsorily tattoo "dickhead" on the forehead of anyone who buys one, so we and they know who they are.
* (Yes, USA claims to be free traders are absolute baloney. But we know that.)
The Conservatives on 39% poll average, so Poilievre would get the highest Conservative voteshare since Harper's 39.6% in 2011, just the Liberals on a forecast 34%, so Carney would get the highest Liberal voteshare since Trudeau's first win in 2015, albeit still below the 39% Trudeau got then, which may be enough for him to scrape home mainly by squeezing the NDP vote. Also very much still possible Poilievre could win most seats even if no longer with a majority.
Looks more like a UK 2010 election, where Brown stopped Cameron getting a majority than a clear Carney win at present but we will see what more polls show
The key provinces in Canada are Ontario and Quebec which between them have 199 of the 338 ridings. In 2021, the Liberals won 113, the Conservatives 47 and the Bloc Quebecois 32. In Ontario, the Liberals won 39% to the Conservatives 35% and the latest regional poll has the Liberals ahead 41-39 so a 2% swing in the key province.
The swing in Quebec from Liberal to Conservative is more like 4.5% with the Bloc down a little and the NDP up a little.
We know the Conservatives will sweep Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan but they can't win many more seats in those regions - the three areas for them are, as said, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The latter split almost equally between Liberal, Conservative and NDP last time and its 42 seats could be crucial but there's been no recent regional polling.
I see the civil service has become ‘flabby’ and ‘over-cautious’.
Not sure that’s the ground that Sir Keir should be choosing to fight the Blob upon.
Is that not essentially what the Tories have said for years?
And essentially failed to do anything constructive about, for years.
Francis Maude was on the radio yesterday claiming that they made good progress in reducing the size of the civil service as the coalition govt but that after 2015 it started increasing again... He didn't offer any explanation as to what might have led to an increase in the size of the civil service... https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/brexit-decreased-public-sector-productivity-uk-changing-europe 25% increase in headcount due to Brexit It's almost as if Conservative policies were counterproductive to their aims
It's almost as though Brexit were a huge distraction from doing anything constructive, for the best part of a decade.
The Conservatives on 39% poll average, so Poilievre would get the highest Conservative voteshare since Harper's 39.6% in 2011, just the Liberals on a forecast 34%, so Carney would get the highest Liberal voteshare since Trudeau's first win in 2015, albeit still below the 39% Trudeau got then, which may be enough for him to scrape home mainly by squeezing the NDP vote. Also very much still possible Poilievre could win most seats even if no longer with a majority.
Looks more like a UK 2010 election, where Brown stopped Cameron getting a majority than a clear Carney win at present but we will see what more polls show
Hard to see how Poilievre survives being hitched to the toxic anchor of Donald Trump.
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
This isn't a terrible analysis of why the MAGA crew are doing what they're doing. And why it's going to fail.
FROM MAGA TO CHINA Here are four things MAGA is getting wrong, and why it's handing over the world to China.
(1) First, MAGA correctly understands that America’s economic position is in decline but thinks this is due to economic competition itself, rather than lack of competitiveness.
(2) Second, MAGA also understands that the US has wasted trillions abroad in foreign wars, but thinks the problem is global leadership itself rather than poor leadership.
(3) Third, MAGA knows that their Blue American enemies have allies abroad, but has incorrectly overreacted to this by treating every non-Red-American as an enemy.
(4) Fourth, MAGA sees the billions of dollars flowing from the US to foreign recipients, but isn't grasping that the US can only print those dollars in the first place so long as it's the hub of a global empire... https://x.com/balajis/status/1899373219297321017
Though even Biden imposed tariffs on Chinese imports as China has an over production of industrial capacity and is dumping the excess cheap goods on foreign markets.
The EU too has tariffs on Chinese EVs for example
"Even Biden used tariffs, so Trump going insane with them isn't so bad" ? That's not really an argument, HY.
On domestic politics, Starner's civil servuce reforms may be very different in ideological origins from Musk's, Trump's, and Thiel's, but echoing the Anerican techno-right's rhetoric of "disruption", as I heard from someone quoted in the government yesterday, is a real hostage to fortune.
Disruption, there, could turn into disaster.
It's just a risk tolerance question. I guess the Civil Service is set up to reduce risk as far as possible, and is moulded in that image with relatively low salaries, great pensions and job security. Those conditions attract people with low tolerance for risk, so you get a virtuous (vicious?) cycle.
Do we really want a disruptive Civil Service? Part of the attraction of the UK is a rock solid set of conventions, laws, taxes etc etc. Just look at the effect of Trump's tariffs on business confidence. Perhaps we should leave it to the private sector to hurry things along, and think tanks to agitate for public sector reform.
Is the intention to create a "disruptive" Civil Service, though ? Or just a modestly more efficient one ?
I would say we need an evolving, adapting Civil Service.
One trying to get a few percent better, every year, continuously.
Robert has made similar remarks, regularly. You're both right of course.
And once on a while, a successful piece of incremental change provides the seed for a much larger one.
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
The issue with most of these questions is self ID. That’s what makes some biological women uncomfortable.
I am not supportive of self ID although I confess I did at the time think what was all the fuss about. I concede I was wrong.
I wonder how the midterms are going to go down? Will Donold Trumps just sit there and twiddle his thumbs while congress lurches to the left or will that be a radical moment in american history. The fact that we cannot be sure tells you that the constitutional crisis is already here and that democrats are bringing pingpong bats to a gun fight.
This is such an unstable situation and what I describe is just the internalities that can go wrong. There is a whole other set of dominoes, economic externalities, a fiscal or currency crisis.... these republicans don't have a conservative bone in their bodies. Conservativism conserves.... it does gradual, reasoned change, it promotes institutional stability. This, what the republicans are, is something completely different.
Yes, they are techno-revolutionaries, with a grim view of human nature.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European peacekeepers anyway, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian etc.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Good morning everyone.
That's the one. It's not acceptable that Russia should have a veto on what sovereign countries do on their own territory, and imo that is a principle to be asserted - gently at first.
I'm with those who have suggested starting a version of the training programme on the territory of Ukraine. It may fit alongside the Operation Skyshield thing (European militaries flying jets over the West of Ukraine) that has been proposed since 2022 or so iirc.
I wonder how the midterms are going to go down? Will Donold Trumps just sit there and twiddle his thumbs while congress lurches to the left or will that be a radical moment in american history. The fact that we cannot be sure tells you that the constitutional crisis is already here and that democrats are bringing pingpong bats to a gun fight.
This is such an unstable situation and what I describe is just the internalities that can go wrong. There is a whole other set of dominoes, economic externalities, a fiscal or currency crisis.... these republicans don't have a conservative bone in their bodies. Conservativism conserves.... it does gradual, reasoned change, it promotes institutional stability. This, what the republicans are, is something completely different.
What midterms?
Genuinely.
It’s very difficult to stop them going ahead, for various reasons, given how embedded and dispersed the election apparatus is in each state. And the fact the constitution mandates it on a very fixed timetable, and doesn’t contain any kind of suspension power as far as I know. I am confident they will go ahead in some form. The biggest danger comes in that I think it has to be a virtual certainty that Trump claims those results as illegitimate again, and whether he now has the power base to actually prevent that Congress sitting. That to me feels like the moment of greatest risk, should there be some kind of coup attempt.
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
Disabled facilities are very widely abused, disabled loos perhaps even more so than Blue Badge parking spaces.
For those with RADAR keys, these keys are available off Amazon for ~£2.
I have one for when illegal access barriers to Rights of Way have been installed using RADAR gates - that is a rather different case. I have a couple on entrances to local Green Flag parks, where "accessibility" is allegedly a core criterion for getting the award (hollow laugh).
Focus groups suggest Trump is really at risk of destroying Farage.
But the biggest risk came from Trump. Nicky a Dudley telecoms worker who otherwise liked Farage asked “why is he cosying up to Trump”. “I used to like Trump, because he used to want to do the right thing for his country. But he’s gone mad” said Lynn
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European peacekeepers anyway, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian etc.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Good morning everyone.
That's the one. It's not acceptable that Russia should have a veto on what sovereign countries do on their own territory, and imo that is a principle to be asserted - gently at first.
I'm with those who have suggested starting a version of the training programme on the territory of Ukraine. It may fit alongside the Operation Skyshield thing (European militaries flying jets over the West of Ukraine) that has been proposed since 2022 or so iirc.
I think we *may* get there in time.
There will be no ceasefire at all if Russia doesn't also agree the terms
Focus groups suggest Trump is really at risk of destroying Farage.
But the biggest risk came from Trump. Nicky a Dudley telecoms worker who otherwise liked Farage asked “why is he cosying up to Trump”. “I used to like Trump, because he used to want to do the right thing for his country. But he’s gone mad” said Lynn
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
That may make it impossible to transition. Transitioning is a process, and AIUI, you have to 'live' as a woman for a period - I believe two years in England, less in Scotland - before you can transition. IMV this makes sense, and I am cautious about making transition easier.
Unfortunately, AIUI some anti-trans shit-stirrers have used men transitioning using male toilets as a sign that they're not actually living as a woman. Then there's the issue of men transitioning going into male toilets, dressed as a woman... And disabled toilets are not always available, and being trans is not a disability.
But this ignores the massively more significant threat to girls and women, which are not grooming gangs, or trans people, but everyday people like you and me (but not you and me, obviously...). The amount of abuse in society is massive, and it is far easier to blame the 'other' than to look closer to home for abusers.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
This isn't a terrible analysis of why the MAGA crew are doing what they're doing. And why it's going to fail.
FROM MAGA TO CHINA Here are four things MAGA is getting wrong, and why it's handing over the world to China.
(1) First, MAGA correctly understands that America’s economic position is in decline but thinks this is due to economic competition itself, rather than lack of competitiveness.
(2) Second, MAGA also understands that the US has wasted trillions abroad in foreign wars, but thinks the problem is global leadership itself rather than poor leadership.
(3) Third, MAGA knows that their Blue American enemies have allies abroad, but has incorrectly overreacted to this by treating every non-Red-American as an enemy.
(4) Fourth, MAGA sees the billions of dollars flowing from the US to foreign recipients, but isn't grasping that the US can only print those dollars in the first place so long as it's the hub of a global empire... https://x.com/balajis/status/1899373219297321017
Though even Biden imposed tariffs on Chinese imports as China has an over production of industrial capacity and is dumping the excess cheap goods on foreign markets.
The EU too has tariffs on Chinese EVs for example
"Even Biden used tariffs, so Trump going insane with them isn't so bad" ? That's not really an argument, HY.
It is an argument the case for protectionism isn't going away, especially in relation to Chinese imports
Strong Message Here on R4 atm; it's taught me a new term, mimophant, someone with the hide of a stampeding, boorish elephant when trampling over other people's sensitivities while reverting to a delicate petalled mimosa, shrivelling at any hint of criticism.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Oh it will be needed and right now. Waiting until we are practically at war before doing anything about defence is what got us in this mess in the first place*
*Well one of the things as I remember using that phrase previously in a slightly different context.
The Conservatives on 39% poll average, so Poilievre would get the highest Conservative voteshare since Harper's 39.6% in 2011, just the Liberals on a forecast 34%, so Carney would get the highest Liberal voteshare since Trudeau's first win in 2015, albeit still below the 39% Trudeau got then, which may be enough for him to scrape home mainly by squeezing the NDP vote. Also very much still possible Poilievre could win most seats even if no longer with a majority.
Looks more like a UK 2010 election, where Brown stopped Cameron getting a majority than a clear Carney win at present but we will see what more polls show
Hard to see how Poilievre survives being hitched to the toxic anchor of Donald Trump.
Well he is still making voteshare gains on the last election for the Conservatives even now, despite falling short of a majority he could still win most seats.
It is also wrong to say Poilievre is hitched to Trump, he has opposed Trump's tariffs and supports Ukraine and is a Canadian patriot who wants no annexation by the US. Barnier is MAGA, Poilievre isn't
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
Disabled facilities are very widely abused, disabled loos perhaps even more so than Blue Badge parking spaces.
For those with RADAR keys, these keys are available off Amazon for ~£2.
I have one for when illegal access barriers to Rights of Way have been installed using RADAR gates - that is a rather different case. I have a couple on entrances to local Green Flag parks, where "accessibility" is allegedly a core criterion for getting the award (hollow laugh).
I have used disabled facilities - rarely - in the past. When my son was a baby, male toilets did not have changing mats, so the only place to do so was either on the floor (yuck), or in the disabled toilets, which sometimes have the dual role of a changing room.
Incidentally, one play centre I went to had no baby-changing area in the male toilets. On one occasion I had to change my son on the carpet outside the toilets; in another, a woman kindly stood guard outside the female toilets as I went in to change him.
Although I don't know why they're called 'baby changing' rooms, as I always came out withe the same baby. I was obviously doing something wrong...
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
I'd suggest European rearmament is needed whatever or not happens in the short term in Ukraine.
That's the current consensus. Whether that holds after a ceasefire, if there is one, is the real question.
A consistent rearmament policy over a number of years will, of course, be much more efficient than a series of stops and starts.
The point for Germany being that from March 25th there is unlikely to be a 2 thirds majority in the Bundestag for amending the constitution to allow more debt to fund defence spending.
The politics is complicated but the legislation proposed by Union-SPD would do 2 things: exempt increased defence spending and aid to Ukraine from the debt brake, and create a special infrastructure "fund" also exempt from the debt brake.
The Greens are unhappy with the wording of the infrastructure fund, and have suggested 2 separate pieces of legislation, which would allow them to vote for the increased defence spending, but not the infrastructure fund unless amended.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Oh it will be needed and right now. Waiting until we are practically at war before doing anything about defence is what got us in this mess in the first place*
*Well one of the things as I remember using that phrase previously in a slightly different context.
We are already at war IMO. It's just another Cold War, for the moment...
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
Not this again.
It's not how they look that matters. It's their sex. Which does not change.
If one man is allowed in then a loo or changing room or refuge is no longer single sex and all men must be allowed in. Looks are irrelevant. If men are allowed in then women are put at risk (look at the increase in sexual offences in mixed sex loos and changing rooms from schools onwards) and many women and girls will self-exclude.
Committing indecent exposure to and voyeurism of women are criminal offences, ones that should be taken much more seriously than they are (see Couzens, for instance). They are not human rights for men. Why do men find it so difficult to understand this? Possibly because a lot of men seem to think that they ought to able to do this and rather relish insulting women who object?
It's looking like playbook 'austerity' and we know how that ends up - years of flatlining growth beyond the 4 years of Trump's administration. They are even suggesting that AI will free everyone to be more productive.
Leaving any cynicism aside, all western economies are searching for that magic ingredient that doesn't involve printing ever larger amounts of cash. It's going to be interesting from a lab rat's point of view.
Productivity.
Real increases in productivity mean fewer people doing more, with less effort.
Real productivity increases in agriculture mean that doctors can laze about in the NHS saving lives. In Ye Goode Olde Days, 97% of the population were required to work on feeding the country. In harvest time, in Medieval times, even the moderately aristocratic were out there helping.
Remember all those propaganda films from the Soviet Union about heroic farm workers harvesting? By hand?
Nowadays, it’s one guy in the climate controlled cab of an expensive machine.
We have a shortage of workers in the U.K.
The population pyramid is aging. If the workers we have can do more for less effort, then that will change the equation.
AI is just a buzzword for some technology. Much of government has been untouched by the real technological revolution.
This isn’t just replacing paper generation with computerised paper generation. That happened a long time back. This is about streamline processes, connecting things together.
If you talk to civil servants, it’s a mix of over work and no work. A classic of queuing theory. They speak of fighting systems designed to prevent things happening.
I shouldn't quote you twice but there's another aspect to your comment on which I wanted to pick.
The introduction of technology doesn't always mean a reduction in headcount or improvements in productivity - it might do when you're working in a field or on a factory floor but if all the technology does is enable more information to be produced, it simply leads to more demands for more information and the employment of more people to process that information.
Complexity isn't resolved by technology - complexisty is resolved by tackling the reasons for complexity.
I do agree we have under employment in many areas (especially but not exclusively specialisms) yet we also have people who cannot find work for years. The number looking for work isn't what the numbers claiming unemployment benefit (or whatever it's called these days). It's inflated by those looking for second jobs to augment income and those who, for whatever reason, cannot even get an interview. I suspect the unemployment rate among those with disabilities continues to be stubbornly high as well.
Oh, indeed
Part of the current problem is unthinking creation of useless “work” - metric tons of documents that no one ever reads and the rest.
That reminds me of a (quite possibly false) anecdote I heard some decades ago when I was doing a summer job at BT's research labs. Supposedly some moderately senior bod in the department got fed up with a long form he periodically had to fill in -- I forget what its nominal purpose was -- so ended up going on a journey through the bureaucracy tracing the path of all these forms, which at that time were still paper. Eventually he tracks down where they get filed and asks the clerk what the data is used for. "Oh no, we just file them: nobody's ever wanted to read them..." The happy ending to the anecdote is that the bod was sufficiently senior to at least get this particular process and form abolished.
I know one should move on but really @CharlieShark you do need to give @rcs1000 a big apology.
Quote from your last post to @rcs1000 : You hadn't said you thought he shouldn't compete on this particular thread
Quote from @rcs1000 earlier in that very same thread: I don't think she should be competing in female boxing
Pretty cut and dry to me.
For those confused by the gender reference @CharlieShark is calling this person a 'he' and @rcs1000 is calling this person a 'she'. They are both referring to the same person.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
This is Murican exceptionalism. What's right for Georgia must be right for anywhere, right? So build ladder frame massive trucks with minimal safety features and massive low power high consumption V8s under the hood. Ain't no replacement for displacement, right?
They are not really 'low' power. All of the V8s in the Big Three (F150, Silverado, Ram) are 350hp+.
I think they'd sell well in the UK if the OEMs were interested in RHD markets (which they are not) and the UK altered its regulatory environment so they could get type approval (which the UK won't).
It'd be disastrous if they sold well in the UK, they're far too big for the UK. A few months ago was trapped in a car park because some twat had "parked" their F150 near the entrance. Some poor soul was attempting to extract their perfectly correctly parked normal size car, it took them about 10 minutes, tens of tiny back and forths and two spotters.
Murican trucks are not coming here. Whilst there is absolutely a thriving market for trucks, it's the "compact" ones like a Ford Ranger and even those are large.
Europe doesn't buy American cars and trucks because they're crap. Yes that is a generalisation but one based on decades of reality. Even their attempts to sell luxury cars fails, because they're not really luxury compared to actual luxury.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
I don't understand the "latest" here, tbh - unless you mean a different proposal.
Trump was out and proud about ending Federal Income Tax before the Election. He even talked about it in his famous Joe Rogan interview.
CNN Report from October 27 2024.
With Election Day around the corner, Trump talked about his interest in ending the federal income tax in two high-profile interviews this week, harking back to the late 19th century, when the US relied on tariffs to fund federal spending. The former president has vowed to broadly impose tariffs, arguing they can generate trillions of dollars in revenue.
Speaking with barbers in the Bronx, New York, in a segment aired on Fox News on Monday, Trump said, “There is a way, if what I’m planning comes out.”
“When we were a smart country, in the 1890s … this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said after a barber asked whether it would be possible to jettison the federal income tax. “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Oh it will be needed and right now. Waiting until we are practically at war before doing anything about defence is what got us in this mess in the first place*
*Well one of the things as I remember using that phrase previously in a slightly different context.
We should be grateful that Trump has been so crudely blunt that only the stupidest, most self-obsessed and most traitorous can still claim that rearmament is not needed.
I wonder how the midterms are going to go down? Will Donold Trumps just sit there and twiddle his thumbs while congress lurches to the left or will that be a radical moment in american history. The fact that we cannot be sure tells you that the constitutional crisis is already here and that democrats are bringing pingpong bats to a gun fight.
This is such an unstable situation and what I describe is just the internalities that can go wrong. There is a whole other set of dominoes, economic externalities, a fiscal or currency crisis.... these republicans don't have a conservative bone in their bodies. Conservativism conserves.... it does gradual, reasoned change, it promotes institutional stability. This, what the republicans are, is something completely different.
What midterms?
Genuinely.
It’s very difficult to stop them going ahead, for various reasons, given how embedded and dispersed the election apparatus is in each state. And the fact the constitution mandates it on a very fixed timetable, and doesn’t contain any kind of suspension power as far as I know. I am confident they will go ahead in some form. The biggest danger comes in that I think it has to be a virtual certainty that Trump claims those results as illegitimate again, and whether he now has the power base to actually prevent that Congress sitting. That to me feels like the moment of greatest risk, should there be some kind of coup attempt.
It is genuinely bonkers for me to pose that question. Crazy. And yet here we are.
Trump is ruling by decree. Congress is complicit and acting to legally censure dissenters. The courts are ultimately owned by Trump at federal level. Some blue states will assert sovereignty but won't get very far.
So it comes down to this. MAGA has is comfortably in power, but still distracted by the remaining enemies of the people who haven't yet got the message that MAGA are now the country.
Elections can only at best distract from this, and at worst give traitors the opportunity to vote for terrorists. So why bother with elections? At least elections in the places where they could lose?
Trump is rapidly doing all the things he said he would do. And he told his people they only had to vote one more time...
You almost certainly know someone who has suffered abuse, and quite possibly within the last year.
Here are the stats:
"The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that 2.3% of adults (3.3% women and 1.2% men) aged 16 years and over were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the year ending March 2022 survey; this equates to an estimated 1.1 million adults (798,000 women and 275,000 men).
Approximately 16.6% of adults aged 16 years and over (7.9 million) had experienced sexual assault (including attempts) since the age of 16 years; 1.9 million were a victim of rape (7.7% women and 0.2% men). "
These abuses are being committed not just by whichever 'other' group you want to blame, but people like us. That great bloke you know down the golf club; that cheeky chappy in the office. Your cousin. Your friend. That's really difficult to admit, so it is easier to blame the 'other'.
That doesn't mean any threat from the 'other' doesn't need tackling, but it does mean we do not ignore the totality.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
I don't understand the "latest" here, tbh - unless you mean a different proposal.
Trump was out and proud about ending Federal Income Tax before the Election. He even talked about it in his famous Joe Rogan interview.
CNN Report from October 27 2024.
With Election Day around the corner, Trump talked about his interest in ending the federal income tax in two high-profile interviews this week, harking back to the late 19th century, when the US relied on tariffs to fund federal spending. The former president has vowed to broadly impose tariffs, arguing they can generate trillions of dollars in revenue.
Speaking with barbers in the Bronx, New York, in a segment aired on Fox News on Monday, Trump said, “There is a way, if what I’m planning comes out.”
“When we were a smart country, in the 1890s … this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said after a barber asked whether it would be possible to jettison the federal income tax. “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”
Yes, I suppose what's new is the actual figure, and the fact that, as mentioned by others, unlike in 2016, Trump is actually following through on his rhetoric.
Trump 2024 is very different from 2016, and the difference is Thiel's very focused influence, at the centre of the nexus, and helping to bring Musk back with Trump and, especially, Vance. According to one of his biographers, his favourite role as a 1980's teenage Dungeons & Dragons was the role of the "quiet narrator, not the noisier characters, because that way he exercised the most control."
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
That may make it impossible to transition. Transitioning is a process, and AIUI, you have to 'live' as a woman for a period - I believe two years in England, less in Scotland - before you can transition. IMV this makes sense, and I am cautious about making transition easier.
Unfortunately, AIUI some anti-trans shit-stirrers have used men transitioning using male toilets as a sign that they're not actually living as a woman. Then there's the issue of men transitioning going into male toilets, dressed as a woman... And disabled toilets are not always available, and being trans is not a disability.
But this ignores the massively more significant threat to girls and women, which are not grooming gangs, or trans people, but everyday people like you and me (but not you and me, obviously...). The amount of abuse in society is massive, and it is far easier to blame the 'other' than to look closer to home for abusers.
Disabled toilets are legally mandated, so they should be everywhere, apart from very small businesses who may just have 'a loo', where the issue solves itself.
No, transitioning people are not disabled, but they have a category that is medical and gives them a good reason to use these facilities, without there being sufficient numbers to cause undue strain.
Your last paragraph is not true - such a policy does not 'ignore a threat' it solves a specific issue. Other solutions are needed for other issues. Cross dressers who like exposing themselves in ladies loos are not 'trans people', they are perverts, and it's very important to make that distinction.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Oh it will be needed and right now. Waiting until we are practically at war before doing anything about defence is what got us in this mess in the first place*
*Well one of the things as I remember using that phrase previously in a slightly different context.
We should be grateful that Trump has been so crudely blunt that only the stupidest, most self-obsessed and most traitorous can still claim that rearmament is not needed.
Yes, but the degree of it and how it's organised (eg which nations in Europe do what, relative spends and capability, their respective responsibilities to the whole, the scale of nuclear vs conventional deterrence, the command and control structure, intelligence sharing, the relevance of Art 5 without the US), all of this is up for debate and there's a large range of possible outcomes.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Oh it will be needed and right now. Waiting until we are practically at war before doing anything about defence is what got us in this mess in the first place*
*Well one of the things as I remember using that phrase previously in a slightly different context.
We should be grateful that Trump has been so crudely blunt that only the stupidest, most self-obsessed and most traitorous can still claim that rearmament is not needed.
Yes, but the degree of it and how it's organised (eg which nations in Europe do what, relative spends and capability, their respective responsibilities to the whole, the scale of nuclear vs conventional deterrence, the command and control structure, intelligence sharing, the relevance of Art 5 without the US), all of this is up for debate and there's a large range of possible outcomes.
Article 5 can remain. There is no obligation under A5 for all members to become militarily involved if I understand it correctly. US would chose to stay out. They are the burger eating surrender monkeys.
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
The current British system since the Noughties, which involves a Gender Recognition Certificate, can be adapted to this by issuance of a card. Unfortunately, IIUC, it is currently illegal to ask for a GRC.
The British system was not well thought thru and assumed that there would be a small number of trans people who looked like their newly assigned gender and could seamlessly go into the closet with new birth certificates, driving licences etc and never stand out. But events since the mid 2010s blew that out of the water: far larger numbers than anticipated try, including the mad, the bad, and the sad, and a non-trivial number of UK people disapprove of the concept of trans itself, regardless of ability.
The solution you suggest is a sensible compromise and would work but current political positions veer between "all trans women are women" and "no trans women are women", and sensible compromises are not in vogue.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
I agree with the view that people that have transitioned through surgery and “look” like the gender, can just use the bathroom they were given. After all, how world anyone know?
A friend of a friend is a trans man, you honestly wouldn’t know - I didn’t - until I was told. I’m frankly not bothered what genitals he has, he’s as male as me as far as I am concerned in practice and is welcome in the male loos.
I say this sincerely, I do think people have a view of trans people that many - and this is something I see JK Rowling do a lot - just look like men in a dress. I honestly think this is not the case.
But I do have one question, if we are to take the view of some, he should still be using the female loos?
Some sadly look less like their newly assigned gender, some more. I think no matter the degree of success of the approximation, once someone has transitioned surgically, they should be able to use their newly assigned genders' loos, and be given a card to show in the unlikely event of being challenged.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
The current British system since the Noughties, which involves a Gender Recognition Certificate, can be adapted to this by issuance of a card. Unfortunately, IIUC, it is currently illegal to ask for a GRC.
The British system was not well thought thru and assumed that there would be a small number of trans people who looked like their newly assigned gender and could seamlessly go into the closet with new birth certificates, driving licences etc and never stand out. But events since the mid 2010s blew that out of the water: far larger numbers than anticipated try, including the mad, the bad, and the sad, and a non-trivial number of UK people disapprove of the concept of trans itself, regardless of ability.
The solution you suggest is a sensible compromise and would work but current political positions veer between "all trans women are women" and "no trans women are women", and sensible compromises are not in vogue.
If there were General Call -Up of all males over 18 (God forbid), I wonder what the status of trans people would be?
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
And tomorrow the fifth anniversary of that notorious covid superspreader event?
Cheltenham? Outdoors, with the rather lower infectitivity of the original strain? I'd look more at the tube in London tbh.
During March 2020 I had numerous drinks with someone who we later realised had covid (tested positive for antibodies around June, I think). He had some of the classic symptoms - taste disturbance - he could no longer drink coffee as it tasted awful but drank peppermint tea made with two bags; fever - just not quite hot enough to go home etc. And yet I didn't get it.
Not the time or place to endlessly rehash the arguments but most outdoor stuff should have been allowed to continue (e.g. park run etc).
You almost certainly know someone who has suffered abuse, and quite possibly within the last year.
Here are the stats:
"The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that 2.3% of adults (3.3% women and 1.2% men) aged 16 years and over were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the year ending March 2022 survey; this equates to an estimated 1.1 million adults (798,000 women and 275,000 men).
Approximately 16.6% of adults aged 16 years and over (7.9 million) had experienced sexual assault (including attempts) since the age of 16 years; 1.9 million were a victim of rape (7.7% women and 0.2% men). "
These abuses are being committed not just by whichever 'other' group you want to blame, but people like us. That great bloke you know down the golf club; that cheeky chappy in the office. Your cousin. Your friend. That's really difficult to admit, so it is easier to blame the 'other'.
That doesn't mean any threat from the 'other' doesn't need tackling, but it does mean we do not ignore the totality.
Yep. And a great many by a relatively small number of repeat offenders. And if you look at the stats for under 16's it is almost without fail a trusted relative of friend of the family.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
Strong Message Here on R4 atm; it's taught me a new term, mimophant, someone with the hide of a stampeding, boorish elephant when trampling over other people's sensitivities while reverting to a delicate petalled mimosa, shrivelling at any hint of criticism.
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
According to his trade secretary they are also thinking of abolishing social security, too.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
I haven't got current stats on that, though I note that Church of England school still seem insanely popular.
Birbalsingh has an interesting non-stereotyped collection of views and practices, that seem to be to be experience not dogma.
Her blog is still up giving the flavour of her thinking. Although I'm sure most of it has gone unless you go looking at archive.org. The last post in 2019 was how they encourage pupils to wean themselves off mobile phone dependence.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
They do when the only outstanding state primary or secondary school in their area is a C of E or Roman Catholic school.
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
Strong Message Here on R4 atm; it's taught me a new term, mimophant, someone with the hide of a stampeding, boorish elephant when trampling over other people's sensitivities while reverting to a delicate petalled mimosa, shrivelling at any hint of criticism.
Trump, or Vance ?
I think they decided that Vance was the absolute epitome, though Trump as ever wasn’t far away from the conversation.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
The Vietcong told the USA to F off, as did the Algerians to France, the Afghans to first the Soviets then the Americans, and indeed Ukraine to the Soviet Union in the 90s.
Strong Message Here on R4 atm; it's taught me a new term, mimophant, someone with the hide of a stampeding, boorish elephant when trampling over other people's sensitivities while reverting to a delicate petalled mimosa, shrivelling at any hint of criticism.
That's interesting - a term I'm experimenting with for the behaviour Trump's supporters who know better but follow the line, such as Marco Rubio - is "performative conformity".
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
At the same time as giving billions back to billionaires? What do you think?
Tax the fuck out of the billionaires and it has more of a chance. Except they would all depart the tax jurisdiction.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
Extrapolate your argument. If a ceasefire can only come with Russian agreement, for fear of nuclear war, that effectively gives free reign to Russia to set the terms.
No NATO troops in Ukraine, or you're nuked. Zelensky out, or you're nuked. Estonia is Russia, or you're nuked.
We have to stand up to the wee twat eventually. That should've really been 2014. Or MH17. Or Salisbury. Each time we prevaricate, he pushes a bit further. The only person who gets this is Erdogan.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
I haven't got current stats on that, though I note that Church of England school still seem insanely popular.
Birbalsingh has an interesting non-stereotyped collection of views and practices, that seem to be to be experience not dogma.
Her blog is still up giving the flavour of her thinking. Although I'm sure most of it has gone unless you go looking at archive.org. The last post in 2019 was how they encourage pupils to wean themselves off mobile phone dependence.
We sent our children to a CofE infants school, although it seemed to have very limited religious content other than being next to a church and if it did we would have had a problem with it as we are both atheists. There were no religious entry requirements.
We sent our children there because it was good, not for religious reasons.
This is Murican exceptionalism. What's right for Georgia must be right for anywhere, right? So build ladder frame massive trucks with minimal safety features and massive low power high consumption V8s under the hood. Ain't no replacement for displacement, right?
They are not really 'low' power. All of the V8s in the Big Three (F150, Silverado, Ram) are 350hp+.
I think they'd sell well in the UK if the OEMs were interested in RHD markets (which they are not) and the UK altered its regulatory environment so they could get type approval (which the UK won't).
It'd be disastrous if they sold well in the UK, they're far too big for the UK. A few months ago was trapped in a car park because some twat had "parked" their F150 near the entrance. Some poor soul was attempting to extract their perfectly correctly parked normal size car, it took them about 10 minutes, tens of tiny back and forths and two spotters.
Murican trucks are not coming here. Whilst there is absolutely a thriving market for trucks, it's the "compact" ones like a Ford Ranger and even those are large.
Europe doesn't buy American cars and trucks because they're crap. Yes that is a generalisation but one based on decades of reality. Even their attempts to sell luxury cars fails, because they're not really luxury compared to actual luxury.
My Scottish buddy, who has lived in the US since the 90s and is now a US citizen, drives exclusively imported cars...
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
Actually, the US has more nuclear *missiles*. They down loaded the number of warheads to a reduced SIOP since the end of the Cold War.
Russia has about equal numbers of *active* nukes, mounted on fewer missiles. But they have larger numbers of things like aircraft bombs in their stockpiles. Which are useless in strategic exchange.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
The Vietcong told the USA to F off, as did the Algerians to France, the Afghans to first the Soviets then the Americans, and indeed Ukraine to the Soviet Union in the 90s.
Also a number of former bits of the British Empire, after we acquired nukes.
Does toddler grade petulance and nukes mean that we get them back?
You almost certainly know someone who has suffered abuse, and quite possibly within the last year.
Here are the stats:
"The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that 2.3% of adults (3.3% women and 1.2% men) aged 16 years and over were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the year ending March 2022 survey; this equates to an estimated 1.1 million adults (798,000 women and 275,000 men).
Approximately 16.6% of adults aged 16 years and over (7.9 million) had experienced sexual assault (including attempts) since the age of 16 years; 1.9 million were a victim of rape (7.7% women and 0.2% men). "
These abuses are being committed not just by whichever 'other' group you want to blame, but people like us. That great bloke you know down the golf club; that cheeky chappy in the office. Your cousin. Your friend. That's really difficult to admit, so it is easier to blame the 'other'.
That doesn't mean any threat from the 'other' doesn't need tackling, but it does mean we do not ignore the totality.
Yep. And a great many by a relatively small number of repeat offenders. And if you look at the stats for under 16's it is almost without fail a trusted relative of friend of the family.
A friend of mine, a lovely person, was abused by an uncle as a child. She made it to 50 after years of torment before finally succeeding in committing suicide. She was a really bubbly person and you wouldn't have a clue unless told. Very sad.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
The Vietcong told the USA to F off, as did the Algerians to France, the Afghans to first the Soviets then the Americans, and indeed Ukraine to the Soviet Union in the 90s.
As did the Ukranians to the Russians in 2022 but in none of the above scenarios was there direct military conflict between nuclear missile powers
The latest Trump/Thiel plan seems to be eliminate all taxes for anyone earning less than 150,000 dollars a year, and then to replace the lost income with tariffs.
Unstupid question: would that work? I don't mean is it a good idea or a bad idea, I mean is it feasible? Would the sums add up?
At the same time as giving billions back to billionaires? What do you think?
Tax the fuck out of the billionaires and it has more of a chance. Except they would all depart the tax jurisdiction.
Some of the techno-fascists envisage a collape and break up into a smaller units, which would naturally be the only legitimate place for their billions to be moved to.
Unless there's a very big pushback, America is in very, very significant trouble.
Reading the clips from the papers on the BBC website this morning I was pleased to see that from the Daily Mail, viz "The Daily Mail reports that a "record five million" people have been forced to pay the higher, 40% tax rate, external. The paper says there's "fury" at what it calls a "stealth tax raid... on middle-class strivers"" Next, hopefully, will be higher taxes on those 'earning' over £1m pa.
The Conservatives on 39% poll average, so Poilievre would get the highest Conservative voteshare since Harper's 39.6% in 2011, just the Liberals on a forecast 34%, so Carney would get the highest Liberal voteshare since Trudeau's first win in 2015, albeit still below the 39% Trudeau got then, which may be enough for him to scrape home mainly by squeezing the NDP vote. Also very much still possible Poilievre could win most seats even if no longer with a majority.
Looks more like a UK 2010 election, where Brown stopped Cameron getting a majority than a clear Carney win at present but we will see what more polls show
Hard to see how Poilievre survives being hitched to the toxic anchor of Donald Trump.
Well he is still making voteshare gains on the last election for the Conservatives even now, despite falling short of a majority he could still win most seats.
It is also wrong to say Poilievre is hitched to Trump, he has opposed Trump's tariffs and supports Ukraine and is a Canadian patriot who wants no annexation by the US. Barnier is MAGA, Poilievre isn't
He's way closer to Trump in public perception though. Trump still wibbling on tariffs does him no good - unless Poilievre can somehow convince Canadians that he has persuaded Trump to drop them. Not impossible - but unlikely.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
I haven't got current stats on that, though I note that Church of England school still seem insanely popular.
Birbalsingh has an interesting non-stereotyped collection of views and practices, that seem to be to be experience not dogma.
Her blog is still up giving the flavour of her thinking. Although I'm sure most of it has gone unless you go looking at archive.org. The last post in 2019 was how they encourage pupils to wean themselves off mobile phone dependence.
We sent our children to a CofE infants school, although it seemed to have very limited religious content other than being next to a church and if it did we would have had a problem with it as we are both atheists. There were no religious entry requirements.
We sent our children there because it was good, not for religious reasons.
I don't know how normal this is.
Very normal, C of E schools are more likely to be rated Outstanding than the average state school and for secondary school entry you have zero chance of entrance to an oversubscribed Outstanding C of E state school without proof of regular church attendance
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
The Vietcong told the USA to F off, as did the Algerians to France, the Afghans to first the Soviets then the Americans, and indeed Ukraine to the Soviet Union in the 90s.
As did the Ukranians to the Russians in 2022 but in none of the above scenarios was there direct military conflict between nuclear missile powers
Americans wiping out a whole platoon of Wagner fighters in Syria was, though. And there were plenty of “training pilots” of decidedly non Vietnamese extraction flying sorties against US troops in Nam.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
Extrapolate your argument. If a ceasefire can only come with Russian agreement, for fear of nuclear war, that effectively gives free reign to Russia to set the terms.
No NATO troops in Ukraine, or you're nuked. Zelensky out, or you're nuked. Estonia is Russia, or you're nuked.
We have to stand up to the wee twat eventually. That should've really been 2014. Or MH17. Or Salisbury. Each time we prevaricate, he pushes a bit further. The only person who gets this is Erdogan.
Well a ceasefire cannot come about without Russian agreement, even if only based on a ceasefire along current lines of occupation in Ukraine
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I tend to agree, a very firm line needs to be drawn on Russia's say over the remainder of Ukraine. They lost any say when they invaded.
However, it may be that NATO or foreign troops aren't the best answer - ensuring Ukraine is armed to the teeth on its own account (everything up to nuclear) is a safer from Ukraine's perspective.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
She's flavour of the month with the Christian Nationalists because she banned prayer rituals in school policy (no religious groups such as a Christian Union) then won a court case defending it against a challenge by Muslim pupil. I'll have a listen to Nick Ferrari. As far as I have tracked her, she seems consistent since her first speech to the Conservative Party conference 15 or 16 years ago when she was identified; I'm not sure of the process by which she was identified as Miss Snuffy.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason .
It’s interesting to see the reactions.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
I haven't got current stats on that, though I note that Church of England school still seem insanely popular.
Birbalsingh has an interesting non-stereotyped collection of views and practices, that seem to be to be experience not dogma.
Her blog is still up giving the flavour of her thinking. Although I'm sure most of it has gone unless you go looking at archive.org. The last post in 2019 was how they encourage pupils to wean themselves off mobile phone dependence.
We sent our children to a CofE infants school, although it seemed to have very limited religious content other than being next to a church and if it did we would have had a problem with it as we are both atheists. There were no religious entry requirements.
We sent our children there because it was good, not for religious reasons.
I don't know how normal this is.
Very normal, C of E schools are more likely to be rated Outstanding than the average state school and for secondary school entry you have zero chance of entrance to an oversubscribed Outstanding C of E state school without proof of regular church attendance
IIRC one of my nieces got herself 'confirmed' so that her children could attend a CoE school. Doesn't seem to have done them any harm. Or made a lot of difference to the way they now, as adults, live their lives.
Today is the vote in the Bundestag on reforming the debt brake. It's still unclear if it will get the 2 thirds majority needed.
If the Russians agree to the ceasefire Ukraine has accepted it may not be needed for the moment anyway
Nonsense
Putin has said he won't even accept European and NATO peacekeepers, it would likely be Turkish, Brazilian, Indian troops etc enforcing any ceasefire.
It would just be future deterrence NATO nations needed to increase their militaries for
Sorry to be picky but Turkey is in NATO so you could have Australian or New Zealand troops I suppose though I agree more likely are Brazilians, Nigerians or Indians. To be honest, if someone else is paying for them (who?), I imagine some countries would be happy to have their soldiers billeted somewhere else at someone else's expense.
Putin gets on with Erdogan so would probably accept Turkish troops, the Russians already rejected Australian involvement
It is time that the Russians are told to FUCK OFF over what they will and won't accept. The suggestion that they should be able to veto who is president and what nationality of troops are allowed in a sovereign country is beyond outrageous. Every concession is a reward for their aggression. Europe needs to keep all sanctions in place and continue to isolate Russia where possible. More appeasement only encourages the aggressor.
I am afraid you can't tell a nation which has the largest number of nuclear missiles on earth to 'F Off.'
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
The Vietcong told the USA to F off, as did the Algerians to France, the Afghans to first the Soviets then the Americans, and indeed Ukraine to the Soviet Union in the 90s.
As did the Ukranians to the Russians in 2022 but in none of the above scenarios was there direct military conflict between nuclear missile powers
Americans wiping out a whole platoon of Wagner fighters in Syria was, though. And there were plenty of “training pilots” of decidedly non Vietnamese extraction flying sorties against US troops in Nam.
Wagner are only mercenaries, there was no direct war between China or Russia and the US in Vietnam.
Even the Korean War was before China had got nuclear missiles
The Conservatives on 39% poll average, so Poilievre would get the highest Conservative voteshare since Harper's 39.6% in 2011, just the Liberals on a forecast 34%, so Carney would get the highest Liberal voteshare since Trudeau's first win in 2015, albeit still below the 39% Trudeau got then, which may be enough for him to scrape home mainly by squeezing the NDP vote. Also very much still possible Poilievre could win most seats even if no longer with a majority.
Looks more like a UK 2010 election, where Brown stopped Cameron getting a majority than a clear Carney win at present but we will see what more polls show
Hard to see how Poilievre survives being hitched to the toxic anchor of Donald Trump.
Well he is still making voteshare gains on the last election for the Conservatives even now, despite falling short of a majority he could still win most seats.
It is also wrong to say Poilievre is hitched to Trump, he has opposed Trump's tariffs and supports Ukraine and is a Canadian patriot who wants no annexation by the US. Barnier is MAGA, Poilievre isn't
He's way closer to Trump in public perception though. Trump still wibbling on tariffs does him no good - unless Poilievre can somehow convince Canadians that he has persuaded Trump to drop them. Not impossible - but unlikely.
Poilievre is still getting 37% to 39% of the vote, more than enough to get most seats still if in the right places even if the tariffs issue doesn't help him
You almost certainly know someone who has suffered abuse, and quite possibly within the last year.
Here are the stats:
"The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that 2.3% of adults (3.3% women and 1.2% men) aged 16 years and over were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the year ending March 2022 survey; this equates to an estimated 1.1 million adults (798,000 women and 275,000 men).
Approximately 16.6% of adults aged 16 years and over (7.9 million) had experienced sexual assault (including attempts) since the age of 16 years; 1.9 million were a victim of rape (7.7% women and 0.2% men). "
These abuses are being committed not just by whichever 'other' group you want to blame, but people like us. That great bloke you know down the golf club; that cheeky chappy in the office. Your cousin. Your friend. That's really difficult to admit, so it is easier to blame the 'other'.
That doesn't mean any threat from the 'other' doesn't need tackling, but it does mean we do not ignore the totality.
Yep. And a great many by a relatively small number of repeat offenders. And if you look at the stats for under 16's it is almost without fail a trusted relative of friend of the family.
A friend of mine, a lovely person, was abused by an uncle as a child. She made it to 50 after years of torment before finally succeeding in committing suicide. She was a really bubbly person and you wouldn't have a clue unless told. Very sad.
Comment on the latest Zeihan: "...We have gone from a civilization that wanted to be Star Trek to a civilisation that wants to be Game of Thrones..."
Or more specifically Dungeons and Dragons, which Musk and Thiel grew up on. I've always thought "Grok" is exactly the sort of name that a 1980s computer geek of this vintage and influences, would probably come up with.
Comments
One trying to get a few percent better, every year, continuously.
Elon walks into the Oval Office, “So Donald, 2 Brazillian peacekeepers were killed in Ukraine yesterday.”
“Jesus Christ Elon, that’s not good news, by the way, remind me how many zeroes in a brazillion.”
It's also the case the USA imposes a tariff of 25% on pickup trucks imported from outside (Canada, Mexico possibly exempt under USMCA). It's called the Chicken Tax ** and it has it's 50th anniversary this year - imposed by Lyndon B Johnson in a dispute over eggs, and kept alive by the auto-manufacturers since through lobbying. *
We should reciprocate that, and apply it to Individual Imports too. Personally I'd go a little further and compulsorily tattoo "dickhead" on the forehead of anyone who buys one, so we and they know who they are.
* (Yes, USA claims to be free traders are absolute baloney. But we know that.)
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
The swing in Quebec from Liberal to Conservative is more like 4.5% with the Bloc down a little and the NDP up a little.
We know the Conservatives will sweep Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan but they can't win many more seats in those regions - the three areas for them are, as said, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The latter split almost equally between Liberal, Conservative and NDP last time and its 42 seats could be crucial but there's been no recent regional polling.
The main issue is men exposing themselves or worse in women's loos. That's solved by allowing them to use women's spaces when fully transitioned. Those in transition and living 'as a woman' can get permission to use disabled facilities, as many do who are not visibly disabled.
That's not really an argument, HY.
You're both right of course.
And once on a while, a successful piece of incremental change provides the seed for a much larger one.
Whether that holds after a ceasefire, if there is one, is the real question.
A consistent rearmament policy over a number of years will, of course, be much more efficient than a series of stops and starts.
He's demonstrated over decades that he can't be trusted on anything.
That's the one. It's not acceptable that Russia should have a veto on what sovereign countries do on their own territory, and imo that is a principle to be asserted - gently at first.
I'm with those who have suggested starting a version of the training programme on the territory of Ukraine. It may fit alongside the Operation Skyshield thing (European militaries flying jets over the West of Ukraine) that has been proposed since 2022 or so iirc.
I think we *may* get there in time.
For those with RADAR keys, these keys are available off Amazon for ~£2.
I have one for when illegal access barriers to Rights of Way have been installed using RADAR gates - that is a rather different case. I have a couple on entrances to local Green Flag parks, where "accessibility" is allegedly a core criterion for getting the award (hollow laugh).
But the biggest risk came from Trump. Nicky a Dudley telecoms worker who otherwise liked Farage asked “why is he cosying up to Trump”. “I used to like Trump, because he used to want to do the right thing for his country. But he’s gone mad” said Lynn
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1900116482421404053
Mares Novices Hurdle: GALILEO DAME
Novices Handicap Chase: FIREFOX
Ryanair Chase: FACT OR FILE (win), ENVOI ALLEN (each way)
Stayers Hurdle: TEAHUPOO (win), MYSTICAL POWER (each way)
Unfortunately, AIUI some anti-trans shit-stirrers have used men transitioning using male toilets as a sign that they're not actually living as a woman. Then there's the issue of men transitioning going into male toilets, dressed as a woman... And disabled toilets are not always available, and being trans is not a disability.
But this ignores the massively more significant threat to girls and women, which are not grooming gangs, or trans people, but everyday people like you and me (but not you and me, obviously...). The amount of abuse in society is massive, and it is far easier to blame the 'other' than to look closer to home for abusers.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/10/russia-warns-australia-deploying-peacekeeping-troops-to-ukraine-would-lead-to-grave-consequences
*Well one of the things as I remember using that phrase previously in a slightly different context.
It is also wrong to say Poilievre is hitched to Trump, he has opposed Trump's tariffs and supports Ukraine and is a Canadian patriot who wants no annexation by the US. Barnier is MAGA, Poilievre isn't
Incidentally, one play centre I went to had no baby-changing area in the male toilets. On one occasion I had to change my son on the carpet outside the toilets; in another, a woman kindly stood guard outside the female toilets as I went in to change him.
Although I don't know why they're called 'baby changing' rooms, as I always came out withe the same baby. I was obviously doing something wrong...
The politics is complicated but the legislation proposed by Union-SPD would do 2 things: exempt increased defence spending and aid to Ukraine from the debt brake, and create a special infrastructure "fund" also exempt from the debt brake.
The Greens are unhappy with the wording of the infrastructure fund, and have suggested 2 separate pieces of legislation, which would allow them to vote for the increased defence spending, but not the infrastructure fund unless amended.
Union-SPD have refused to do this.
When I couldn't afford to pay the bill, he gave me another six months.
It's not how they look that matters. It's their sex. Which does not change.
If one man is allowed in then a loo or changing room or refuge is no longer single sex and all men must be allowed in. Looks are irrelevant. If men are allowed in then women are put at risk (look at the increase in sexual offences in mixed sex loos and changing rooms from schools onwards) and many women and girls will self-exclude.
Committing indecent exposure to and voyeurism of women are criminal offences, ones that should be taken much more seriously than they are (see Couzens, for instance). They are not human rights for men. Why do men find it so difficult to understand this? Possibly because a lot of men seem to think that they ought to able to do this and rather relish insulting women who object?
Quote from your last post to @rcs1000 : You hadn't said you thought he shouldn't compete on this particular thread
Quote from @rcs1000 earlier in that very same thread: I don't think she should be competing in female boxing
Pretty cut and dry to me.
For those confused by the gender reference @CharlieShark is calling this person a 'he' and @rcs1000 is calling this person a 'she'. They are both referring to the same person.
Listening to Birbelsingh on Nick Ferrari. This woman is out of control. I recommend anyone with interest in schools policy to listen to this on Global Player. I was shocked. Those of a more conservative point of view will be cheered.
Most are "in case OFSTED ask to see them".
Europe doesn't buy American cars and trucks because they're crap. Yes that is a generalisation but one based on decades of reality. Even their attempts to sell luxury cars fails, because they're not really luxury compared to actual luxury.
Trump was out and proud about ending Federal Income Tax before the Election. He even talked about it in his famous Joe Rogan interview.
CNN Report from October 27 2024.
With Election Day around the corner, Trump talked about his interest in ending the federal income tax in two high-profile interviews this week, harking back to the late 19th century, when the US relied on tariffs to fund federal spending. The former president has vowed to broadly impose tariffs, arguing they can generate trillions of dollars in revenue.
Speaking with barbers in the Bronx, New York, in a segment aired on Fox News on Monday, Trump said, “There is a way, if what I’m planning comes out.”
“When we were a smart country, in the 1890s … this is when the country was relatively the richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t have an income tax,” Trump said after a barber asked whether it would be possible to jettison the federal income tax. “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”
A few days later, podcaster Joe Rogan asked Trump whether he was serious about replacing federal income taxes with tariffs.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/26/politics/trump-income-taxes-tariffs/index.html
Trump is ruling by decree. Congress is complicit and acting to legally censure dissenters. The courts are ultimately owned by Trump at federal level. Some blue states will assert sovereignty but won't get very far.
So it comes down to this. MAGA has is comfortably in power, but still distracted by the remaining enemies of the people who haven't yet got the message that MAGA are now the country.
Elections can only at best distract from this, and at worst give traitors the opportunity to vote for terrorists. So why bother with elections? At least elections in the places where they could lose?
Trump is rapidly doing all the things he said he would do. And he told his people they only had to vote one more time...
You almost certainly know someone who has suffered abuse, and quite possibly within the last year.
Here are the stats:
"The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides the best measure of victimisation and estimated that 2.3% of adults (3.3% women and 1.2% men) aged 16 years and over were victims of sexual assault (including attempts) in the year ending March 2022 survey; this equates to an estimated 1.1 million adults (798,000 women and 275,000 men).
Approximately 16.6% of adults aged 16 years and over (7.9 million) had experienced sexual assault (including attempts) since the age of 16 years; 1.9 million were a victim of rape (7.7% women and 0.2% men).
"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022
These abuses are being committed not just by whichever 'other' group you want to blame, but people like us. That great bloke you know down the golf club; that cheeky chappy in the office. Your cousin. Your friend. That's really difficult to admit, so it is easier to blame the 'other'.
That doesn't mean any threat from the 'other' doesn't need tackling, but it does mean we do not ignore the totality.
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1899988879698256195
Trump 2024 is very different from 2016, and the difference is Thiel's very focused influence, at the centre of the nexus, and helping to bring Musk back with Trump and, especially, Vance. According to one of his biographers, his favourite role as a 1980's teenage Dungeons & Dragons was the role of the "quiet narrator, not the noisier characters, because that way he
exercised the most control."
No, transitioning people are not disabled, but they have a category that is medical and gives them a good reason to use these facilities, without there being sufficient numbers to cause undue strain.
Your last paragraph is not true - such a policy does not 'ignore a threat' it solves a specific issue. Other solutions are needed for other issues. Cross dressers who like exposing themselves in ladies loos are not 'trans people', they are perverts, and it's very important to make that distinction.
(Religion in Public Life has been an area of interest of mine for decades, as you know.)
That lets the CNats (and GBNews etc) pretend that it's about Muslims, and reflects desire to stir things up, when it was more like a victory for "secular" school cultures excluding religion, which is one groups like the National Secular Society have been on for decades. @BartholomewRoberts may be more up to date than me on that side of it.
Here's GBNews framing it as about Muslims immigrants imposing things on "our" society, and Birbalsingh giving sensible replies arguing that practical multiculturalism requires no religious practice in her school:
https://www.gbnews.com/opinion/prayer-ban-ruling-huge-victory-common-sense-patrick-christys
It was a somewhat complex argument, because iirc it was about prayer ritual in the playground as effectively a form of protest when her school refused to provide a prayer room for pupils.
The self-described "freedom of XYZ" groups take the other side than they do on "silent prayer" (ie intimidation and interference) outside abortion clinics - for some reason
The British system was not well thought thru and assumed that there would be a small number of trans people who looked like their newly assigned gender and could seamlessly go into the closet with new birth certificates, driving licences etc and never stand out. But events since the mid 2010s blew that out of the water: far larger numbers than anticipated try, including the mad, the bad, and the sad, and a non-trivial number of UK people disapprove of the concept of trans itself, regardless of ability.
The solution you suggest is a sensible compromise and would work but current political positions veer between "all trans women are women" and "no trans women are women", and sensible compromises are not in vogue.
@Mexicanpete is shocked because it seems like restricting the *requirements* of a minority.
The GBNews take it as anti-Muslim.
Most people don’t want more religion in our schools - even the weak-tea-and-biscuits form of Christianity.
During March 2020 I had numerous drinks with someone who we later realised had covid (tested positive for antibodies around June, I think). He had some of the classic symptoms - taste disturbance - he could no longer drink coffee as it tasted awful but drank peppermint tea made with two bags; fever - just not quite hot enough to go home etc. And yet I didn't get it.
Not the time or place to endlessly rehash the arguments but most outdoor stuff should have been allowed to continue (e.g. park run etc).
And if you look at the stats for under 16's it is almost without fail a trusted relative of friend of the family.
Loony tunes are here.
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1899979456351031336
Birbalsingh has an interesting non-stereotyped collection of views and practices, that seem to be to be experience not dogma.
based.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Birbalsingh
Her blog is still up giving the flavour of her thinking. Although I'm sure most of it has gone unless you go looking at archive.org. The last post in 2019 was how they encourage pupils to wean themselves off mobile phone dependence.
https://tomisswithloveblog.wordpress.com/
To get a ceasefire you need Ukranian AND Russian agreement and if that means only allowing peacekeeping troops from mainly non NATO nations so be it. Ukraine has already accepted the Trump administration's ceasefire terms so if Russia accepts too that is where we are whatever Europe does
Then you get parents queuing round the block to get into the church congregation on a Sunday for the months leading up to the decision on who gets places so they can get the Vicar's reference
Tax the fuck out of the billionaires and it has more of a chance. Except they would all depart the tax jurisdiction.
No NATO troops in Ukraine, or you're nuked.
Zelensky out, or you're nuked.
Estonia is Russia, or you're nuked.
We have to stand up to the wee twat eventually. That should've really been 2014. Or MH17. Or Salisbury. Each time we prevaricate, he pushes a bit further. The only person who gets this is Erdogan.
We sent our children there because it was good, not for religious reasons.
I don't know how normal this is.
Russia has about equal numbers of *active* nukes, mounted on fewer missiles. But they have larger numbers of things like aircraft bombs in their stockpiles. Which are useless in strategic exchange.
Does toddler grade petulance and nukes mean that we get them back?
Unless there's a very big pushback, America is in very, very significant trouble.
"The Daily Mail reports that a "record five million" people have been forced to pay the higher, 40% tax rate, external. The paper says there's "fury" at what it calls a "stealth tax raid... on middle-class strivers""
Next, hopefully, will be higher taxes on those 'earning' over £1m pa.
And Good Morning everybody (?else)
However, it may be that NATO or foreign troops aren't the best answer - ensuring Ukraine is armed to the teeth on its own account (everything up to nuclear) is a safer from Ukraine's perspective.
Doesn't seem to have done them any harm. Or made a lot of difference to the way they now, as adults, live their lives.
Even the Korean War was before China had got nuclear missiles