Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
The US isn't an autocracy yet, despite Trump's tendencies, and the readiness of his party to facilitate them.
China isn't exactly a pure autocracy, either, though it's gone most of the way under Xi.
Yes it's nuanced.
I'm arguing in black and white for simplicity. But it isn't simple.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
The US isn't an autocracy yet, despite Trump's tendencies, and the readiness of his party to facilitate them.
China isn't exactly a pure autocracy, either, though it's gone most of the way under Xi.
Various terms are bandied about and often used incorrectly.
- Authoritarian: lots of countries - Autocracy: means one person in control - Dictatorship: ditto but with absolute power - Totalitarian: leadership can be either individual or by a group/junta
I would describe China as an authoritarian state with totalitarian tendencies, that is not a full autocracy yet but on the way to being one.
Whereas Hungary is an authoritarian autocracy that’s not totalitarian or a dictatorship. Likewise Turkey.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
"Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of credible opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association."
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
"Amanda Spielman is a bad leader, an inept person, and has done enormous damage to the education of children not I think because she meant to but because she was profoundly ignorant, not especially intelligent and incredibly arrogant. You can see why she was a friend of Dominic Cummings."
This is the stuff of HIGNFY.
Are we to take the rest of it seriously?
A little bit of comedic high jinx doesn't detract from the fact that Spielman was wholly unsuitable to her role and Johnsonian era corruption has seen a vile, self-serving nincompoop on the cusp of being elevated to the House of Lords.
These personal vendettas are becoming a thing. If they're not funny they sound mean spirited. We've become adept in this country at creating monsters and it's not one of our attractive qualities.
Did the UK invent the stocks?
That is not the problem in the U.K. The problem is that we have, for far too long, had low expectations of those in charge. We have tolerated - and far too often rewarded - the incompetent, the malign, the self-serving, the dishonest, the unprofessional. We have allowed people in charge of public services to put their personal interests first or to treat the public sector as something to be plundered for profit without in return providing the quality of service we ought to expect. We have refused to hold leaders meaningfully accountable for their actions and failures to act. We have covered up gross incompetence and malfeasance and done everything possible to avoid providing effective compensation for those harmed by this.
And the result is that we have second and third rate public services, leaders who think only about what they can take rather than what they can give to those whom they are meant to serve and when any of this is pointed out to those who fail us we have to endure a load of self-pitying whining and laughable excuses. If anything works in this country it is down to those who do try to behave professionally and with some degree of responsibility and honesty and who, frankly, do not get properly recognised or rewarded.
Pointing this out is not putting people in the stocks or being mean-spirited. It is necessary and long overdue if we are even to begin changing this for the better.
We should expect and demand better.
Beware the hounds of self righteousness. You never know what's around the corner
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
One could add the bungled war with Vietnam, and the one-child policy.
Yes, there's a wide range of views on China's leadership's competence. Personally I tend to the view that incompetence is baked into autocracy and that China is no exception, and that there are dozens of areas in which poor decision-making - as a direct result of the autocratic nature of the country- has left them perilously placed (the housing market being a prime example). My view is that China is teetering on the abyss.
And yet, look at China's progress since 1980. In 1980 almost every country in Africa was richer than China. Almost the whole country existed on subsistence agriculture.
The only was I can square this circle is by suggesting that the leadership of the Deng era was actually anomalously competent - and anomalously unautocratic.
Or that your assumption that incompetence is baked into autocracy is incorrect?
That's a pretty safe assumption to make, based upon scores of worked examples.
Just look at China. That's a big worked example!
Compare China, with democratic Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea.
OK
Average GDP growth over the last ten years
China 6.1% Japan 0.7% South Korea 2.5% Taiwan 3.1%
You're overlooking the base figure that each country is coming from.
You said that it is a pretty safe assumption, based upon scores of worked examples, that incompetence is baked into autocracy. I gave a counter example. Were you only referring to rich countries?
But I have to admit that the US, currently under an autocracy, is a good example of incompetence. On the other hand, China, also an autocracy, is a good example of competence.
There doesn't appear to be a general rule.
The US is not *yet* an autocracy. If it becomes one under Trump, we can safely assume that it will become not just less free but also less competently run.
But, if you do want worked examples of efficiency/inefficiency, in terms of outcomes between democracies and autocracies, compare:
East v West Germany; North v South Korea; China v Taiwan; just about anywhere in Eastern Europe under Communism v Eastern Europe after 1991. Indonesia under Sukarno/Suharto, and Indonesia as a democracy.
Comparing the 2 biggest countries in the world: India and China had similar GDP per capita until the 90s. Now China's GDP per capita is 5 times bigger than India's.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
One could add the bungled war with Vietnam, and the one-child policy.
Yes, there's a wide range of views on China's leadership's competence. Personally I tend to the view that incompetence is baked into autocracy and that China is no exception, and that there are dozens of areas in which poor decision-making - as a direct result of the autocratic nature of the country- has left them perilously placed (the housing market being a prime example). My view is that China is teetering on the abyss.
And yet, look at China's progress since 1980. In 1980 almost every country in Africa was richer than China. Almost the whole country existed on subsistence agriculture.
The only was I can square this circle is by suggesting that the leadership of the Deng era was actually anomalously competent - and anomalously unautocratic.
Or that your assumption that incompetence is baked into autocracy is incorrect?
That's a pretty safe assumption to make, based upon scores of worked examples.
Just look at China. That's a big worked example!
Compare China, with democratic Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea.
OK
Average GDP growth over the last ten years
China 6.1% Japan 0.7% South Korea 2.5% Taiwan 3.1%
"China’s authoritarian regime has become increasingly repressive in recent years. The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to tighten control over all aspects of life and governance, including the state bureaucracy, the media, online speech, religious practice, universities, businesses, and civil society associations."
"Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?" Score = 0/4
"Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?" Score = 0/4
"Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?" Score = 0/4
"Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?" Score = 0/4
"Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?" Score = 0/4
"Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means?" Score = 0/4
"Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?" Score = 0/4
"Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?" Score = 0/4
"Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective?" Score = 1/4
"Does the government operate with openness and transparency?" Score = 0/4
"Amanda Spielman is a bad leader, an inept person, and has done enormous damage to the education of children not I think because she meant to but because she was profoundly ignorant, not especially intelligent and incredibly arrogant. You can see why she was a friend of Dominic Cummings."
This is the stuff of HIGNFY.
Are we to take the rest of it seriously?
A little bit of comedic high jinx doesn't detract from the fact that Spielman was wholly unsuitable to her role and Johnsonian era corruption has seen a vile, self-serving nincompoop on the cusp of being elevated to the House of Lords.
These personal vendettas are becoming a thing. If they're not funny they sound mean spirited. We've become adept in this country at creating monsters and it's not one of our attractive qualities.
Did the UK invent the stocks?
That is not the problem in the U.K. The problem is that we have, for far too long, had low expectations of those in charge. We have tolerated - and far too often rewarded - the incompetent, the malign, the self-serving, the dishonest, the unprofessional. We have allowed people in charge of public services to put their personal interests first or to treat the public sector as something to be plundered for profit without in return providing the quality of service we ought to expect. We have refused to hold leaders meaningfully accountable for their actions and failures to act. We have covered up gross incompetence and malfeasance and done everything possible to avoid providing effective compensation for those harmed by this.
And the result is that we have second and third rate public services, leaders who think only about what they can take rather than what they can give to those whom they are meant to serve and when any of this is pointed out to those who fail us we have to endure a load of self-pitying whining and laughable excuses. If anything works in this country it is down to those who do try to behave professionally and with some degree of responsibility and honesty and who, frankly, do not get properly recognised or rewarded.
Pointing this out is not putting people in the stocks or being mean-spirited. It is necessary and long overdue if we are even to begin changing this for the better.
We should expect and demand better.
I blame, to some extent anyway, Margaret Thatcher. I well remember her suggesting that graduates achieving highest grades should not enter public service but commerce, suggesting that the pursuit of profit was more important than public service. As Ms Cyclefree points out, it isn't.
When I worked in the NHS there was a period in the mid 90's when some Trusts discouraged their staff from attending conferences, on the grounds that Trusts were competing, and discussing improvements at conferences would benefit competitors.
And Good Morning, one and all.
That's probably some of it. But there's also what I can only describe as old-fashioned morality.
Ofsted sits in judgement over schools, heads and teachers, in a professional-life-or-death way. That's necessary. But it only works if those doing the judgement are unimpeachable. And AS wasn't, for the reasons the good doctor listed. Had there been an OfstOfsted inspection, she would have failed.
(It's why I've never sought that sort of role. I've got the sort of temperament that takes "judge not, lest ye be judged" too seriously and I fear buckling under that load. Thank goodness there are others more robust than me.)
It's the "rules are for the little people, not for me" that grates. And something in the formation of the British Ruling Class promotes that attitude.
I can't comment on Ofsted, because I'm not, and never have been, a teacher. I'm surrounded by them (wife, mother-in-law, grandson, granddaughter-in-law) so I've seen enough to know that whatever experience I had, many years ago, of education isn't relevant to what happens now.
But your last couple of sentences do strike a bell, and I suggest it's all down to an attitude engrained, especially in the English, by first the descendants of William the Bastard and his followers and secondly by the Established Church.
Probably not a popular opinion here, but private schools are another reason much of the establishment think there are different sets of rules for the elite and the rest.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
One could add the bungled war with Vietnam, and the one-child policy.
Yes, there's a wide range of views on China's leadership's competence. Personally I tend to the view that incompetence is baked into autocracy and that China is no exception, and that there are dozens of areas in which poor decision-making - as a direct result of the autocratic nature of the country- has left them perilously placed (the housing market being a prime example). My view is that China is teetering on the abyss.
And yet, look at China's progress since 1980. In 1980 almost every country in Africa was richer than China. Almost the whole country existed on subsistence agriculture.
The only was I can square this circle is by suggesting that the leadership of the Deng era was actually anomalously competent - and anomalously unautocratic.
Or that your assumption that incompetence is baked into autocracy is incorrect?
That's a pretty safe assumption to make, based upon scores of worked examples.
Do you think there's a difference between "autocracy, but the leader is on a ten year term and everybody knows it'll be someone different after that" and the more common straight-up "autocracy, same guy indefinitely" ? Or is it much of a muchness?
The former implies a mechanism to remove and replace them, so it's limited autocracy.
Same guy indefinitely means that other sources of political power have been extinguished. Which in turn means greater fear of, and compliance with the ruler's wishes.
China is a fair example, as Xi has steadily eroded the status of institutions independent of his direct control, as he moves China from the first category to the second.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
Indians alone are 38% of the population in UAE. Some of have it great, some have it good, some have it bad, some have it very bad. My point was it not just Emiratis and Europeans who enjoy life there.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
David Davis's point about the crucial bit of democracy being the ability to change its mind.
On infrastructure we manage to change our mind a bit too often.....
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
Indians alone are 38% of the population in UAE. Some of have it great, some have it good, some have it bad, some have it very bad. My point was it not just Emiratis and Europeans who enjoy life there.
"The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven emirates. Limited elections are held for a federal advisory body, but political parties are banned, and all executive, legislative, and judicial authority ultimately rests with the seven hereditary rulers. The civil liberties of both citizens and noncitizens are subject to significant restrictions."
"Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?" Score = 0/4
"Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?" Score = 1/4
"Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?" Score = 0/4
"Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?" Score = 0/4
"Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?" Score = 0/4
"Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means?" Score = 1/4
"Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?" Score = 1/4
"Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?" Score = 0/4
"Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective?" Score = 2/4
"Does the government operate with openness and transparency?" Score = 0/4
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
Indians alone are 38% of the population in UAE. Some of have it great, some have it good, some have it bad, some have it very bad. My point was it not just Emiratis and Europeans who enjoy life there.
"The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven emirates. Limited elections are held for a federal advisory body, but political parties are banned, and all executive, legislative, and judicial authority ultimately rests with the seven hereditary rulers. The civil liberties of both citizens and noncitizens are subject to significant restrictions."
"Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?" Score = 0/4
"Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?" Score = 1/4
"Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?" Score = 0/4
"Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?" Score = 0/4
"Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?" Score = 0/4
"Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means?" Score = 1/4
"Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?" Score = 1/4
"Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?" Score = 0/4
"Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective?" Score = 2/4
"Does the government operate with openness and transparency?" Score = 0/4
Lots of number but is there a point you are trying to make? I listed the UAE as an autocracy so the above is all to be expected.
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Republican senator Ted Cruz warned of a potential “bloodbath” for his party in the 2026 midterm elections if Donald Trump’s tariffs send the US economy into recession.
The senator from Texas also predicted a “terrible” fate for the world’s largest economy should a full-blown trade war erupt and Trump’s tariffs, as well as any retaliatory measures on US goods, stay in place long-term.
Republican lawmakers have begun to worry about the effects of Trump’s tariffs on the economy and their party’s prospects for keeping control of both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Their concerns grew as Americans watched about $5.4tn of stock market capitalisation evaporate over a two-day Wall Street rout.
On Thursday, Republican Chuck Grassley introduced a bill in the Senate, alongside a Democrat, to reassert Congressional control of tariff policy. Under the proposed law, new levies would expire in 60 days unless approved by Congress, and there would be a mechanism for lawmakers to cancel tariffs at any point.
Carlos Sainz should be banned for at least six races.
Loving the fact that Liam Lawson has finished ahead of Tsunoda.
Indeed
It shows just how good a driver Max Verstappen really is though.
The best ever imo.
That was Jim Clark. Verstappen over the course of the last 75 years would be fortunate to make the top 20.
I used to have a Jim Clark racing car (small, hand held) that used to go up and down our hall of our army quarters in my hand. His was the first death that really shocked me when I was about 7. I was distraught.
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Republican senator Ted Cruz warned of a potential “bloodbath” for his party in the 2026 midterm elections if Donald Trump’s tariffs send the US economy into recession.
The senator from Texas also predicted a “terrible” fate for the world’s largest economy should a full-blown trade war erupt and Trump’s tariffs, as well as any retaliatory measures on US goods, stay in place long-term.
Republican lawmakers have begun to worry about the effects of Trump’s tariffs on the economy and their party’s prospects for keeping control of both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Their concerns grew as Americans watched about $5.4tn of stock market capitalisation evaporate over a two-day Wall Street rout.
On Thursday, Republican Chuck Grassley introduced a bill in the Senate, alongside a Democrat, to reassert Congressional control of tariff policy. Under the proposed law, new levies would expire in 60 days unless approved by Congress, and there would be a mechanism for lawmakers to cancel tariffs at any point.
I have a soft spot for Cruz, because the first sentence one of his daughters ever said was “I like butter”. Senators are more independent creatures than representatives. Cruz doesn’t face another election for 6 years. Will we see Republicans in the House start to shift?
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
I'm far from sure that's the case. The Chinese authorities like to *appear* competent, but the signs bubbling up from under the surface are from that. They just try to hide their incompetence better - usually by blaming other minions in the system.
The way they lied, hid and dissembled the seriousness of the Covid outbreak in early 2020, when openness was key, shows that well.
They have lifted 1 BILLION people out of poverty in 40 years, without any major social ructions. They have neutralised any threat from Islam. They have established the world's finest largest high speed rail network. Their coastal cities now rank alongside western Europe and the USA in prosperity, even if there is a vast neglected hinterland. Their universities are shooting up the rankings, their companies are some of the most successful in the world, and the biggest. They have stealthily taken Hong Kong without a shot being fired and there is a reasonable chance they will do the same with Taiwan
They have surged to pre-eminence in world trade. They have cleverly undermined the West, in all ways, throughout this, avoiding our wars while stoking discord and rancour within our societies. Do we ever see Muslim countries/groups condemn China, even though China has a FAR worse record on Muslim rights? No, we do not. They condemn the West, because we are perceived as weak, guilty and divided
They have conjured the world's biggest navy, from nothing. They are dominant in Africa and most of Asia. They are turning Russia into a vassal state. And now they are on the cusp of overtaking the West in the foremost technologies of the time. DeepSeek did not come from nowhere. Do a DeepSeek search on "Unitree"
Is their regime perfect? Of course not. Covid was a clusterfuck. And came from their lab. Their demographics are dismal - but this is a worldwide problem that no one has solved. There are many dissenting voices that would love to overthrow Xi and his appalling cronies. The Chinese elite is cruel, brutal and greedy
But, basically competent? Yes, absolutely. What else would you have them do?! They have shown that autocracy can REALLY work, which is why democracy is in brisk retreat as so many developing countries now ape the Chinese model rather than the West
*Might* have come from their lab. We don't know and possibly never will - which would be a shame given the stature of the pandemic as a world event. Still, there are precedents for the cause of huge happenings in history remaining uncertain. And maybe it's no bad thing, come to think of it. Life shouldn't be stripped of all its mystery.
At this point, anyone who still maintains there's a good chance it came from the market and not the lab is a flailing idiot who can't handle information
"'The French Academy of Medicine voted almost unanimously--97% to 3%--to say we believe SARS-CoV-2 originated from a lab error and precautions must be taken in the future,' revealed Professor Jean-François Delfraissy in a press conference April 2, 2025."
And they merit respect, the French Academy of Medicine. Plenty of serious opinion (in addition to yours) does favour lab leak. Plenty also favours market. And there's a third strand (and here I include myself) which takes the view that there's no clinching evidence either way. I hope it does get resolved one day. I guess we can agree on that at least.
"Trying to squash every bilateral balance to zero through brute-force tariffs is to levy taxes on international trade exactly where it provides the most benefits to Americans. Yet, this is what Trump's tariff numbers are designed to do."
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
One could add the bungled war with Vietnam, and the one-child policy.
Yes, there's a wide range of views on China's leadership's competence. Personally I tend to the view that incompetence is baked into autocracy and that China is no exception, and that there are dozens of areas in which poor decision-making - as a direct result of the autocratic nature of the country- has left them perilously placed (the housing market being a prime example). My view is that China is teetering on the abyss.
And yet, look at China's progress since 1980. In 1980 almost every country in Africa was richer than China. Almost the whole country existed on subsistence agriculture.
The only was I can square this circle is by suggesting that the leadership of the Deng era was actually anomalously competent - and anomalously unautocratic.
Or that your assumption that incompetence is baked into autocracy is incorrect?
That's a pretty safe assumption to make, based upon scores of worked examples.
Just look at China. That's a big worked example!
A putative Chinese equivalent to PB.com would be TOTALLY FUCKING BORING!
"And in this week's Opinion Poll, the Chinese Communist Party achieved 99.9% approval! Exactly the same as last week's poll!"
"And that Amanda Spielman was an excellent head of OFSTED and fully deserves her election to the Standing Committee"
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
"Trying to squash every bilateral balance to zero through brute-force tariffs is to levy taxes on international trade exactly where it provides the most benefits to Americans. Yet, this is what Trump's tariff numbers are designed to do."
"Trying to squash every bilateral balance to zero through brute-force tariffs is to levy taxes on international trade exactly where it provides the most benefits to Americans. Yet, this is what Trump's tariff numbers are designed to do."
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
One could add the bungled war with Vietnam, and the one-child policy.
Yes, there's a wide range of views on China's leadership's competence. Personally I tend to the view that incompetence is baked into autocracy and that China is no exception, and that there are dozens of areas in which poor decision-making - as a direct result of the autocratic nature of the country- has left them perilously placed (the housing market being a prime example). My view is that China is teetering on the abyss.
And yet, look at China's progress since 1980. In 1980 almost every country in Africa was richer than China. Almost the whole country existed on subsistence agriculture.
The only was I can square this circle is by suggesting that the leadership of the Deng era was actually anomalously competent - and anomalously unautocratic.
Or that your assumption that incompetence is baked into autocracy is incorrect?
That's a pretty safe assumption to make, based upon scores of worked examples.
Just look at China. That's a big worked example!
Compare China, with democratic Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea.
OK
Average GDP growth over the last ten years
China 6.1% Japan 0.7% South Korea 2.5% Taiwan 3.1%
You're overlooking the base figure that each country is coming from.
You said that it is a pretty safe assumption, based upon scores of worked examples, that incompetence is baked into autocracy. I gave a counter example. Were you only referring to rich countries?
But I have to admit that the US, currently under an autocracy, is a good example of incompetence. On the other hand, China, also an autocracy, is a good example of competence.
There doesn't appear to be a general rule.
The US is not *yet* an autocracy. If it becomes one under Trump, we can safely assume that it will become not just less free but also less competently run.
But, if you do want worked examples of efficiency/inefficiency, in terms of outcomes between democracies and autocracies, compare:
East v West Germany; North v South Korea; China v Taiwan; just about anywhere in Eastern Europe under Communism v Eastern Europe after 1991. Indonesia under Sukarno/Suharto, and Indonesia as a democracy.
Autocracies sometimes work ok before they become autocracies, ie a strong leader gets things done and has success, then it goes to their head, they get to thinking they should hold power indefinitely, and the rot sets in. There are several examples of this.
"Trying to squash every bilateral balance to zero through brute-force tariffs is to levy taxes on international trade exactly where it provides the most benefits to Americans. Yet, this is what Trump's tariff numbers are designed to do."
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
Just thank the Lord you're English. It's a blessing of which we are generally unaware, except when engulfed by foreigners.
but in spite of all temptations to belong to other nations, he remains an englishman! he remains an englishman! all. for in spite of all temptations to belong to other nations, he remains an englishman! he remains an englishman!
I would make gongs the sole preserve of nominated recipients for their selfless work for the greater public benefit.
Not for sportsmen. Nor luvvies. Not for ex-MPs. And certainly not for civil servants. Time-servers in paid employment reluctant to take a decision because it might impact on their getting letters after their name is one of the curses that goes down the ages. End it now.
I agree with this.
Coincidentally I'd deserve a hereditary Dukedom for running PB.
I would make gongs the sole preserve of nominated recipients for their selfless work for the greater public benefit.
Not for sportsmen. Nor luvvies. Not for ex-MPs. And certainly not for civil servants. Time-servers in paid employment reluctant to take a decision because it might impact on their getting letters after their name is one of the curses that goes down the ages. End it now.
I agree with this.
Coincidentally I'd deserve a hereditary Dukedom for running PB.
"Trying to squash every bilateral balance to zero through brute-force tariffs is to levy taxes on international trade exactly where it provides the most benefits to Americans. Yet, this is what Trump's tariff numbers are designed to do."
Why are actors held in such contempt that they merit the derisive “luvvies”? It’s hard to see what they’ve, as a group, done wrong and it’s one of the few remaining fields of endeavour that these islands remain an undisputed global leader in. Actor expresses opinion. So what?
I would make gongs the sole preserve of nominated recipients for their selfless work for the greater public benefit.
Not for sportsmen. Nor luvvies. Not for ex-MPs. And certainly not for civil servants. Time-servers in paid employment reluctant to take a decision because it might impact on their getting letters after their name is one of the curses that goes down the ages. End it now.
I agree with this.
Coincidentally I'd deserve a hereditary Dukedom for running PB.
At least.
Talking about titles, at university I did serious consideration about applying for a job at the Foreign Office.
I really wanted the title 'Your Excellency' and the GCMG honour (God Calls Me God) but I realised I would make more money in the private sector.
In an alternative universe I am His Majesty's Most Excellent Ambassador and Plenipotentiary to France or the United States.
I would make gongs the sole preserve of nominated recipients for their selfless work for the greater public benefit.
Not for sportsmen. Nor luvvies. Not for ex-MPs. And certainly not for civil servants. Time-servers in paid employment reluctant to take a decision because it might impact on their getting letters after their name is one of the curses that goes down the ages. End it now.
I agree with this.
Coincidentally I'd deserve a hereditary Dukedom for running PB.
At least.
Talking about titles, at university I did serious consideration about applying for a job at the Foreign Office.
I really wanted the title 'Your Excellency' and the GCMG honour (God Calls Me God) but I realised I would make more money in the private sector.
In an alternative universe I am His Majesty's Most Excellent Ambassador and Plenipotentiary to France or the United States.
I often wonder about the road not travelled.
They gave one to Daniel Craig because James Bond had one IIRC
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
One could add the bungled war with Vietnam, and the one-child policy.
Yes, there's a wide range of views on China's leadership's competence. Personally I tend to the view that incompetence is baked into autocracy and that China is no exception, and that there are dozens of areas in which poor decision-making - as a direct result of the autocratic nature of the country- has left them perilously placed (the housing market being a prime example). My view is that China is teetering on the abyss.
And yet, look at China's progress since 1980. In 1980 almost every country in Africa was richer than China. Almost the whole country existed on subsistence agriculture.
The only was I can square this circle is by suggesting that the leadership of the Deng era was actually anomalously competent - and anomalously unautocratic.
Or that your assumption that incompetence is baked into autocracy is incorrect?
That's a pretty safe assumption to make, based upon scores of worked examples.
Just look at China. That's a big worked example!
Compare China, with democratic Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea.
OK
Average GDP growth over the last ten years
China 6.1% Japan 0.7% South Korea 2.5% Taiwan 3.1%
You're overlooking the base figure that each country is coming from.
You said that it is a pretty safe assumption, based upon scores of worked examples, that incompetence is baked into autocracy. I gave a counter example. Were you only referring to rich countries?
But I have to admit that the US, currently under an autocracy, is a good example of incompetence. On the other hand, China, also an autocracy, is a good example of competence.
There doesn't appear to be a general rule.
The US is not *yet* an autocracy. If it becomes one under Trump, we can safely assume that it will become not just less free but also less competently run.
But, if you do want worked examples of efficiency/inefficiency, in terms of outcomes between democracies and autocracies, compare:
East v West Germany; North v South Korea; China v Taiwan; just about anywhere in Eastern Europe under Communism v Eastern Europe after 1991. Indonesia under Sukarno/Suharto, and Indonesia as a democracy.
Autocracies sometimes work ok before they become autocracies, ie a strong leader gets things done and has success, then it goes to their head, they get to thinking they should hold power indefinitely, and the rot sets in. There are several examples of this.
I have little knowledge of education but great respect for @ydoethur contributions to PB and absolutely agree that Spielman should not go to the Lords
We can find terrible nominations to the Lords across the political divide and IMHO the Lords including Bishops should be scrapped and replaced with an elected second chamber with revising powers
I don't care much what they do with the second chamber except for one thing. There should only be one elected decision making body - ie the House of Commons. To have two or more such outfits sets the country against itself.
An added and increasingly obvious benefit of the position the House of Commons holds is that it is very much harder for a charismatic psychopath to take the sort of control that is occurring in the USA. The powers of a single president are of course reinforced by having a mandate. The UK mandate belongs to 650 MPs, the PM has no less and no more than being one of those. The Lords has wisdom but no mandate. Keep it that way.
An elected second chamber would be very helpful to curb a charismatic but autocratic UK Prime Minister, if the second chamber is elected using a different and more proportional electoral system.
For example, Margaret Thatcher had a huge Commons majority with only 42% of the vote in the 1987 election. Her Community Charge was opposed by both Labour & the Alliance, and if there had been a 2nd chamber elected using PR, then the Upper House would have been able to block her from implementing it.
The elected second chamber can also be used to give greater political power to Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland.
In Australia, the government usually lacks a majority in the Senate because it is elected using PR & each of the 6 States have an equal number of Senators. This is very helpful to push governments towards pursuing centrist and moderate policies.
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
Just thank the Lord you're English. It's a blessing of which we are generally unaware, except when engulfed by foreigners.
It's a glorious day in Britain. Who would want to be anywhere else when the weather is so fine, and the blossom out?
Me. Because, although it is pissing down in Almaty, Kazahstan, from the window of my modernised late-Soviet apartment in downtown I can see the extraordinary skyline of the Tien Shan mountains - they are so close they practically loom over the Opera House
And tomorrow the rain breaks and a warm sunny spell begins. Spring in the Tien Shan mountains! Imagine! The Alpine lakes, the incredible canyons, the vastness and the grandeur...
Also, Almaty unexpectedly has a real buzz and some great cafes and bars, and life is short, and I want to see EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
Just thank the Lord you're English. It's a blessing of which we are generally unaware, except when engulfed by foreigners.
It's a glorious day in Britain. Who would want to be anywhere else when the weather is so fine, and the blossom out?
Those who suffer from hayfever
There is that.
Big match for the Tractor boys today.
Best of luck. Leicester are totally doomed if not mathematically certain yet. We haven't scored a home goal since December, and no clean sheets either...
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
I would make gongs the sole preserve of nominated recipients for their selfless work for the greater public benefit.
Not for sportsmen. Nor luvvies. Not for ex-MPs. And certainly not for civil servants. Time-servers in paid employment reluctant to take a decision because it might impact on their getting letters after their name is one of the curses that goes down the ages. End it now.
I agree with this.
Coincidentally I'd deserve a hereditary Dukedom for running PB.
At least.
Talking about titles, at university I did serious consideration about applying for a job at the Foreign Office.
I really wanted the title 'Your Excellency' and the GCMG honour (God Calls Me God) but I realised I would make more money in the private sector.
In an alternative universe I am His Majesty's Most Excellent Ambassador and Plenipotentiary to France or the United States.
I often wonder about the road not travelled.
My wife is a great fan of the Midnight Library. On balance it seems to suggest that contentment with the road you did travel is the better way to happiness.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
I'm far from sure that's the case. The Chinese authorities like to *appear* competent, but the signs bubbling up from under the surface are from that. They just try to hide their incompetence better - usually by blaming other minions in the system.
The way they lied, hid and dissembled the seriousness of the Covid outbreak in early 2020, when openness was key, shows that well.
They have lifted 1 BILLION people out of poverty in 40 years, without any major social ructions. They have neutralised any threat from Islam. They have established the world's finest largest high speed rail network. Their coastal cities now rank alongside western Europe and the USA in prosperity, even if there is a vast neglected hinterland. Their universities are shooting up the rankings, their companies are some of the most successful in the world, and the biggest. They have stealthily taken Hong Kong without a shot being fired and there is a reasonable chance they will do the same with Taiwan
They have surged to pre-eminence in world trade. They have cleverly undermined the West, in all ways, throughout this, avoiding our wars while stoking discord and rancour within our societies. Do we ever see Muslim countries/groups condemn China, even though China has a FAR worse record on Muslim rights? No, we do not. They condemn the West, because we are perceived as weak, guilty and divided
They have conjured the world's biggest navy, from nothing. They are dominant in Africa and most of Asia. They are turning Russia into a vassal state. And now they are on the cusp of overtaking the West in the foremost technologies of the time. DeepSeek did not come from nowhere. Do a DeepSeek search on "Unitree"
Is their regime perfect? Of course not. Covid was a clusterfuck. And came from their lab. Their demographics are dismal - but this is a worldwide problem that no one has solved. There are many dissenting voices that would love to overthrow Xi and his appalling cronies. The Chinese elite is cruel, brutal and greedy
But, basically competent? Yes, absolutely. What else would you have them do?! They have shown that autocracy can REALLY work, which is why democracy is in brisk retreat as so many developing countries now ape the Chinese model rather than the West
*Might* have come from their lab. We don't know and possibly never will - which would be a shame given the stature of the pandemic as a world event. Still, there are precedents for the cause of huge happenings in history remaining uncertain. And maybe it's no bad thing, come to think of it. Life shouldn't be stripped of all its mystery.
At this point, anyone who still maintains there's a good chance it came from the market and not the lab is a flailing idiot who can't handle information
"'The French Academy of Medicine voted almost unanimously--97% to 3%--to say we believe SARS-CoV-2 originated from a lab error and precautions must be taken in the future,' revealed Professor Jean-François Delfraissy in a press conference April 2, 2025."
And they merit respect, the French Academy of Medicine. Plenty of serious opinion (in addition to yours) does favour lab leak. Plenty also favours market. And there's a third strand (and here I include myself) which takes the view that there's no clinching evidence either way. I hope it does get resolved one day. I guess we can agree on that at least.
At this point anyone who thinks this is "kinda 50/50" or "we can't really know, so why bother" is so dumb it's not worth engaging. So I am happy to yield. Believe what you like, if it consoles you
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
Just thank the Lord you're English. It's a blessing of which we are generally unaware, except when engulfed by foreigners.
It's a glorious day in Britain. Who would want to be anywhere else when the weather is so fine, and the blossom out?
Me. Because, although it is pissing down in Almaty, Kazahstan, from the window of my modernised late-Soviet apartment in downtown I can see the extraordinary skyline of the Tien Shan mountains - they are so close they practically loom over the Opera House
And tomorrow the rain breaks and a warm sunny spell begins. Spring in the Tien Shan mountains! Imagine! The Alpine lakes, the incredible canyons, the vastness and the grandeur...
Also, Almaty unexpectedly has a real buzz and some great cafes and bars, and life is short, and I want to see EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD
Book a flight to the ISS (and back). You'll see everything in the world in 90 minutes. Costs about $50 million. Take binoculars.
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
OGH used to impose a 800 word limit, although this was not imposed on Cyclefree. Her articles came in around the 1200 word mark, for which she was teased. 1200 became known as "the Cyclefree limit". Then I did one around 1400 mark (1400="the Viewcode limit"). Arguments went back and forth until Ydoethur published one around 1800 (1800="the Ydoethur limit"), at which point word limits became pointless. The current limiting factor is the tolerance of the mods.
This article is around the 1600 mark and is well within the Ydoethur limit
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Why are actors held in such contempt that they merit the derisive “luvvies”? It’s hard to see what they’ve, as a group, done wrong and it’s one of the few remaining fields of endeavour that these islands remain an undisputed global leader in. Actor expresses opinion. So what?
Eloquent naivety is irritating.
(Why actors tend to have airhead views is more interesting. In theory their understanding of the human condition should be strong - perhaps it comes from not understanding the difference between anecdotes and policy).
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
This entire discourse of yours, today, is one long humblebrag designed to tell us, *subtly*, that you are flying in Business
"I'm just off to the Maple Leaf Lounge to annoy Trump", "the menu says Entrees", etc
However I cannot critcise because I do this endlessly myself
Ooh someone stealing your thunder and there's a hint of petty irritation from you.
@TimS 's little narrative has been less of a "brag" and more of an observation of the moment. His reservations about transiting through the US and flying with an American carrier, offset by his supporting the Canadian transit lounge. It has been quite an interesting little story. You see it as a "brag" because that is how you roll.
Why are actors held in such contempt that they merit the derisive “luvvies”? It’s hard to see what they’ve, as a group, done wrong and it’s one of the few remaining fields of endeavour that these islands remain an undisputed global leader in. Actor expresses opinion. So what?
Eloquent naivety is irritating.
(Why actors tend to have airhead views is more interesting. In theory their understanding of the human condition should be strong - perhaps it comes from not understanding the difference between anecdotes and policy).
Not all actors are airheads. I think it more that there is resentment of success in the UK.
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
This entire discourse of yours, today, is one long humblebrag designed to tell us, *subtly*, that you are flying in Business
"I'm just off to the Maple Leaf Lounge to annoy Trump", "the menu says Entrees", etc
However I cannot critcise because I do this endlessly myself
Ooh someone stealing your thunder and there's a hint of petty irritation from you.
@TimS 's little narrative has been less of a "brag" and more of an observation of the moment. His reservations about transiting through the US and flying with an American carrier, offset by his supporting the Canadian transit lounge. It has been quite an interesting little story. You see it as a "brag" because that is how you roll.
No, I recognise the behaviour because I do it
However, I enjoy @TimS's travelogues - I enjoy all the PB travelogues because I am furiously interested in travel (to an almost pathological degree) - so I hope he keeps us posted on Mexico City. I really liked his musings and photos from Senegal, even if they were not *quite* enough to make me go
Why are actors held in such contempt that they merit the derisive “luvvies”? It’s hard to see what they’ve, as a group, done wrong and it’s one of the few remaining fields of endeavour that these islands remain an undisputed global leader in. Actor expresses opinion. So what?
Eloquent naivety is irritating.
(Why actors tend to have airhead views is more interesting. In theory their understanding of the human condition should be strong - perhaps it comes from not understanding the difference between anecdotes and policy).
Not all actors are airheads. I think it more that there is resentment of success in the UK.
I'm sure. But success in acting is only partly talent and hard work. There's also plenty of luck - in getting on a hit show, in being born pretty and so on. Plenty to be jealous about.
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Labour Comms are truly incompetent in so many ways.
They really are.
I don't like the ad. There's a racial discrimination angle to be seen if one so wishes but I suspect any available misunderstanding is more down to incompetence than racist unpleasantness.
It'll happen one day. But not for some time I suspect, for the moment the patronage alone to reward old chums and donors keeps all the big parties sweet on it.
I'm a supporter of reforming and retaining an appointed chamber, but I think general sentiment is against that long term.
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
This entire discourse of yours, today, is one long humblebrag designed to tell us, *subtly*, that you are flying in Business
"I'm just off to the Maple Leaf Lounge to annoy Trump", "the menu says Entrees", etc
However I cannot critcise because I do this endlessly myself
Ooh someone stealing your thunder and there's a hint of petty irritation from you.
@TimS 's little narrative has been less of a "brag" and more of an observation of the moment. His reservations about transiting through the US and flying with an American carrier, offset by his supporting the Canadian transit lounge. It has been quite an interesting little story. You see it as a "brag" because that is how you roll.
No, I recognise the behaviour because I do it
However, I enjoy @TimS's travelogues - I enjoy all the PB travelogues because I am furiously interested in travel (to an almost pathological degree) - so I hope he keeps us posted on Mexico City. I really liked his musings and photos from Senegal, even if they were not *quite* enough to make me go
No, sorry Leon I am detecting just a hint of grrr. You've been upstaged (probably inadvertently).
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
It's tragic. And oddly reassuring about voting either Tory or Reform.
It's so unbelievably crass, awkward and cringe it makes me admire Kemi B, and I think she's pretty terrible as Tory leader and LOTO
Exactly.
Also, I would like a combination like this in Government. It would mean we wouldn't be getting a load of golf-club racists (a worry of many with Reform), but we also wouldn't be getting another trip to woke TINA heartbreak hotel (a worry of many with the Tories). Bring it on I say.
The only thing that would make me afraid of such a photoshop creature coming to power would be if it had any of Keir Starmer in it. Since it doesn't, rock on.
I have little knowledge of education but great respect for @ydoethur contributions to PB and absolutely agree that Spielman should not go to the Lords
We can find terrible nominations to the Lords across the political divide and IMHO the Lords including Bishops should be scrapped and replaced with an elected second chamber with revising powers
I don't care much what they do with the second chamber except for one thing. There should only be one elected decision making body - ie the House of Commons. To have two or more such outfits sets the country against itself.
An added and increasingly obvious benefit of the position the House of Commons holds is that it is very much harder for a charismatic psychopath to take the sort of control that is occurring in the USA. The powers of a single president are of course reinforced by having a mandate. The UK mandate belongs to 650 MPs, the PM has no less and no more than being one of those. The Lords has wisdom but no mandate. Keep it that way.
I agree for the most part, but I think the long term trend will be to end up with two elected bodies. It obviously can work, and as it is 'normal' in most places the argument against is harder to make, and since politicians abuse the appointments process once the argument of democratic legitimacy exceeds political benefits of rewarding mates and those who give politicians money the apathy keeping the status quo will go.
I reiterate one of my quick and easy fixes for the Lords, which is to ban ex-MPs until 8 years or two terms has passed (whichever is longer). It's not that ex-MPs make terrible Peers necessarily, but without a gap they are too immersed in day to day partisanship for the role, or they are some old duffer kicked upstairs to convince them to stand down.
Likewise no one who makes a donation to a political party or politician should get an honour or peerage for the same length of time (this includes top union heads), to ensure there is no quid pro quo. It isn't a punishment to decide not to donate money if you want to focus on good works to earn acclaim.
Trump’s team did actually spend weeks calculating the true reciprocal tariff rates for each country, and then he just decided not to do that anymore and based it on trade deficits.
DOGE, key appointments, Russia/Ukraine, Gaza, bombing the Houthis, tariffs ... there's a theme. No strategy or prep or planning or due diligence, all on the whim of a single individual. It's no way to carry on at the best of times and it's downright scary when the individual in question is not only lazy and borderline stupid but doesn't even mean well.
The only saving grace (and it's not much) is that lazy, stupid and malign is preferable to clever, hardworking and malign.
The best feature of autocracies is that they are usually incompetent. Indeed, competent people are seen as a threat to the Leader.
China being a very very notable exception
They made some of the most ruinous policy errors in world history under Mao. Then had a pretty sensible couple of decades. Xi has changed the dynamic again. I’m not sure that will end well.
CEO Xi is flexible and well advised. Note his change of stance on the technocrats eg Jack Ma. He has a strong board of Directors, appointed on merit , who have to retire at the age of 68 to ensure quality succession (except for him of course).
It's similar to a well run multinational. It can make long term plans eg the Belt and Road Initiative, as it doesn't face electors every few years who want short term goodies.
The big drawbacks are rampant corruption, suppression of personal freedom, indifference to the welfare of the masses from those at the top, and probably most important of all - inability for those at the bottom to criticise those at the top.
The ability to criticise freely is such an important function, in the modern State.
You're looking at it through Western eyes that values personal freedom over stability and a growing standard of living. Many in the East value the latter.
Western values are changing too, and the appeal of a Nietzschean Übermensch is growing. As a liberal, I watch with apprehension.
Well plenty of Eastern peoples (eg Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Indonesians) have turned out to favour democracy over autocracy, too. There's nothing inherent in Easterners that makes them favour autocracy, or in Westerners that makes them favour democracy.
In general, democracies deliver the goods more effectively than autocracies do. But, the flaws of democracies tend to be glaring and obvious, whereas the flaws of autocracies are hidden. Outsiders look at the shiny new cities, autobahns, thousands of people goose-stepping in synch, and think how impressive this all is, while overlooking the wretched lives of the peasantry, the concentration camps, the secret police.
Yeah, except I have travelled widely in China and they don't have wretched lives. Sorry
Also, the Chinese "peasantry" has largely disappeared. The idea there are hundreds of millions labouring away in dismal misery in the paddy fields is simply ludicrous
It is an ubanised society. There is much discontent, as there is anywhere. Humans are naturally discontented
Is China successfully delivering greater prosperity? Yes. And in cities that are crime-free and clean compared to many western cities
The argument is not whether Chinese living standards have increased impressively, since 1976, (obviously they have), the argument is whether this proves that autocracies do a better job at raising living standards than democracies do - where I would say the evidence shows that they do not.
Autocracies are not even better at waging war (which is the metric they usually want to be judged upon), than democracies are.
Intuitively a well run autocracy (Singapore, UAE) will be better at managing the economy than a well run democracy as it has the advantage of consistent long term planning and investment, but a typical democracy is better than a typical autocracy. More importantly a badly run democracy can quickly turn course whereas a badly run autocracy is far more likely to fall into a viscious circle and further decline that is hard to move on from.
Point of order, Singapore is Partly Free, according to Freedom House, whereas the UAE is classed as Not Free. Scores are Singapore 48/100 versus UAE 18/100. Compare 84/100 for USA and 92/100 for Blighty.
"Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of credible opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association."
In NOTA speak, thats an autocracy.
Yes, though not as blatant or blunt about it as some.
Then you have the other absurd side of argument that places like Russia are genuine democracies because they hold elections.
I'm not sure about the comment about a badly run democracy being able to quickly turn course. It's obviously happened, there are places which are democratic today which were not 40 years ago, but in the last decade it feels like the trend is for democratic standards to slip.
You're also going to hear the Trump Third Term nonsense stop cold in its tracks if this continues.
"Make me a dictator so I can gut your pensions and retirement and raise costs" is not a strategy that any successful despot has ever employed in taking over a prosperous nation. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1908307560689787366
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Labour Comms are truly incompetent in so many ways.
They really are.
I don't like the ad. There's a racial discrimination angle to be seen if one so wishes but I suspect any available misunderstanding is more down to incompetence than racist unpleasantness.
There a bit of a track record of “incompetent” posters that are racist dog whistles though.
Like that MP who got disbarred or the Michael Howard/Fagin poster
15 minutes to takeoff on United UA17, and I’m already getting irritated by the little microaggressions.
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
This entire discourse of yours, today, is one long humblebrag designed to tell us, *subtly*, that you are flying in Business
"I'm just off to the Maple Leaf Lounge to annoy Trump", "the menu says Entrees", etc
However I cannot critcise because I do this endlessly myself
Ooh someone stealing your thunder and there's a hint of petty irritation from you.
@TimS 's little narrative has been less of a "brag" and more of an observation of the moment. His reservations about transiting through the US and flying with an American carrier, offset by his supporting the Canadian transit lounge. It has been quite an interesting little story. You see it as a "brag" because that is how you roll.
No, I recognise the behaviour because I do it
However, I enjoy @TimS's travelogues - I enjoy all the PB travelogues because I am furiously interested in travel (to an almost pathological degree) - so I hope he keeps us posted on Mexico City. I really liked his musings and photos from Senegal, even if they were not *quite* enough to make me go
No, sorry Leon I am detecting just a hint of grrr. You've been upstaged (probably inadvertently).
Hmm maybe
Perhaps there was a tiny grr there. However if there was, then it was certainly not some absurd chagrin at being upstaged or whatever, it was jealousy of someone going to an interesting place, even as I am next to the Tien Shan mountains
That is to say, I am so keen on travel even as I am in Kazakhstan when I hear of someone going to Mexico (or Iceland, Namibia, Australia, Toronto, Anglesey on a boat, fuck knows - almost anything) then I get a pang of envy and I want to be doing that AS WELL
I am like the smoker described by Martin Amis who is so addicted to cigarettes even as he's smoking a cigarette he feels the desire to smoke a cigarette. Even as I travel to Kazakhstan I feel the desire to be in Mexico, Montpelier, or Malmo
It is absolutely pathological, and closely linked to my aversion to boredom, but at this late stage in life I have accepted I am not going to change
Why are actors held in such contempt that they merit the derisive “luvvies”? It’s hard to see what they’ve, as a group, done wrong and it’s one of the few remaining fields of endeavour that these islands remain an undisputed global leader in. Actor expresses opinion. So what?
Eloquent naivety is irritating.
(Why actors tend to have airhead views is more interesting. In theory their understanding of the human condition should be strong - perhaps it comes from not understanding the difference between anecdotes and policy).
I don't think it is that complicated, it's just that actors are often charismatic and confident (even if just in performance, be it professional performance or them speaking as themselves on TV etc), even if they know very little. And because of their fame they will get a chance to reveal how little they know if they want to speak on something - even if they are no less stupid on average than other people.
So you have an increased chance of hearing what an actor thinks about something if they want, and if they are simplistic or wrong about it, their confidence in spouting it will be infuriating.
He seems to have fallen in love with crypto right around the time it was seen very publicly how easy it was to use it to scam people. Sam Bankman-Fried will probably be out of prison soon, even though his parents are Democrats.
Surprised the first corporation pardon wasn't a pre-emptive one for the Trump Organisation though.
China has been hit much harder than the USA, not even close. They, and many other nations, have treated us unsustainably badly. We have been the dumb and helpless "whipping post," but not any longer. We are bringing back jobs and businesses like never before. Already, more than FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT, and rising fast! THIS IS AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTION, AND WE WILL WIN. HANG TOUGH, it won't be easy, but the end result will be historic. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Labour Comms are truly incompetent in so many ways.
They really are.
I don't like the ad. There's a racial discrimination angle to be seen if one so wishes but I suspect any available misunderstanding is more down to incompetence than racist unpleasantness.
There a bit of a track record of “incompetent” posters that are racist dog whistles though.
Like that MP who got disbarred or the Michael Howard/Fagin poster
No I agree the incompetence of Party Comms. people over the years seem to allow them to fall into the same bear trap year after year, but I doubt they all sit around a table and groupthink ads that can make the party appear racist. Although that probably did happen during Corbyn 's time in charge.
Immigration Policy: +3% Employment/Jobs: -15% American Foreign Policy: -19% National Economy: -23% National Politics: -23% International Trade: -24% Inflation: -37%
Quite a brave image to go with from Labour in the era of blackface cancellations. It’s not blackface, but is in the ball park I think, especially as it’s only half the face that isn’t Farage, the clothes are his
Are they trying to make Reform look bad by association with the Tories, or the Tories look bad by association with Reform? Or both?
I'm sure it is the latter, and some spad thought it was great.
"Like, it's both of them right, only in one image together" "Genius. It's so subtle and nuanced. You deserve a raise" "I'll take a safe seat candidacy instead, but thanks".
China has been hit much harder than the USA, not even close. They, and many other nations, have treated us unsustainably badly. We have been the dumb and helpless "whipping post," but not any longer. We are bringing back jobs and businesses like never before. Already, more than FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT, and rising fast! THIS IS AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTION, AND WE WILL WIN. HANG TOUGH, it won't be easy, but the end result will be historic. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
It's an old thought, but revolution has always seemed like an odd word for what it is meant to be, given when you complete 1 revolution you are back where you started. Obviously some revolutions end up that way, but most cases things are genuinely transformative.
Comments
I'm arguing in black and white for simplicity. But it isn't simple.
- Authoritarian: lots of countries
- Autocracy: means one person in control
- Dictatorship: ditto but with absolute power
- Totalitarian: leadership can be either individual or by a group/junta
I would describe China as an authoritarian state with totalitarian tendencies, that is not a full autocracy yet but on the way to being one.
Whereas Hungary is an authoritarian autocracy that’s not totalitarian or a dictatorship. Likewise Turkey.
"Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of credible opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association."
In NOTA speak, thats an autocracy.
Otherwise......... no, thanks
Like travellers joshing loudly and performatively with the cabin crew, and the fact they insist on calling the main course in menus the “Entree”.
At least there’s no expectation of 30% tips on a flight.
"China’s authoritarian regime has become increasingly repressive in recent years. The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to tighten control over all aspects of life and governance, including the state bureaucracy, the media, online speech, religious practice, universities, businesses, and civil society associations."
https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2024
"Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?"
Score = 0/4
"Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?"
Score = 0/4
"Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?"
Score = 0/4
"Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?"
Score = 0/4
"Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?"
Score = 0/4
"Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means?"
Score = 0/4
"Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?"
Score = 0/4
"Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?"
Score = 0/4
"Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective?"
Score = 1/4
"Does the government operate with openness and transparency?"
Score = 0/4
Same guy indefinitely means that other sources of political power have been extinguished. Which in turn means greater fear of, and compliance with the ruler's wishes.
China is a fair example, as Xi has steadily eroded the status of institutions independent of his direct control, as he moves China from the first category to the second.
(In terms of getting top jobs. I'm not calling for her existence to never have happened.)
Germany, INSA poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 24% (-3)
AfD-ESN: 24%
SPD-S&D: 16%
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 11% (-1)
LINKE-LEFT: 11%
FDP-RE: 4%
BSW-NI: 4% (-1)
+/- vs. 28-31 March 2025
Fieldwork: 31 March-4 April 2025
Sample size: 1,206"
https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/1908472338774966726
"The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven emirates. Limited elections are held for a federal advisory body, but political parties are banned, and all executive, legislative, and judicial authority ultimately rests with the seven hereditary rulers. The civil liberties of both citizens and noncitizens are subject to significant restrictions."
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-arab-emirates/freedom-world/2024
"Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?"
Score = 0/4
"Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?"
Score = 1/4
"Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?"
Score = 0/4
"Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?"
Score = 0/4
"Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?"
Score = 0/4
"Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means?"
Score = 1/4
"Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?"
Score = 1/4
"Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?"
Score = 0/4
"Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective?"
Score = 2/4
"Does the government operate with openness and transparency?"
Score = 0/4
https://x.com/uklabour/status/1908464212336050533?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
And probably much better would be merging Farage with Trump at the moment and go for orange face.
Republican senator Ted Cruz warned of a potential “bloodbath” for his party in the 2026 midterm elections if Donald Trump’s tariffs send the US economy into recession.
The senator from Texas also predicted a “terrible” fate for the world’s largest economy should a full-blown trade war erupt and Trump’s tariffs, as well as any retaliatory measures on US goods, stay in place long-term.
Republican lawmakers have begun to worry about the effects of Trump’s tariffs on the economy and their party’s prospects for keeping control of both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections. Their concerns grew as Americans watched about $5.4tn of stock market capitalisation evaporate over a two-day Wall Street rout.
On Thursday, Republican Chuck Grassley introduced a bill in the Senate, alongside a Democrat, to reassert Congressional control of tariff policy. Under the proposed law, new levies would expire in 60 days unless approved by Congress, and there would be a mechanism for lawmakers to cancel tariffs at any point.
https://www.ft.com/content/00ee505e-57bb-4272-8b51-09ebb67dc5ee
Seems to be mainly about potholes.
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/trumps-tariffs-are-designed-maximum-damage-america
Apple, recently the most valuable company in the World, has exactly the supply chain that will be maximally hit by tariffs.
to belong to other nations,
he remains an englishman!
he remains an englishman!
all.
for in spite of all temptations
to belong to other nations,
he remains an englishman!
he remains an englishman!
Hurrah!
Coincidentally I'd deserve a hereditary Dukedom for running PB.
cashcredit card details?I gather the Chair's a bastard in dry conditions so go safely.
I really wanted the title 'Your Excellency' and the GCMG honour (God Calls Me God) but I realised I would make more money in the private sector.
In an alternative universe I am His Majesty's Most Excellent Ambassador and Plenipotentiary to France or the United States.
I often wonder about the road not travelled.
Tony.
Hubris
For example, Margaret Thatcher had a huge Commons majority with only 42% of the vote in the 1987 election. Her Community Charge was opposed by both Labour & the Alliance, and if there had been a 2nd chamber elected using PR, then the Upper House would have been able to block her from implementing it.
The elected second chamber can also be used to give greater political power to Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland.
In Australia, the government usually lacks a majority in the Senate because it is elected using PR & each of the 6 States have an equal number of Senators. This is very helpful to push governments towards pursuing centrist and moderate policies.
And tomorrow the rain breaks and a warm sunny spell begins. Spring in the Tien Shan mountains! Imagine! The Alpine lakes, the incredible canyons, the vastness and the grandeur...
Also, Almaty unexpectedly has a real buzz and some great cafes and bars, and life is short, and I want to see EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD
Betting PostF1: backed Albon to beat Tsunoda and Hadjar at 2.87.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/04/japanese-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
Big match for the Tractor boys today.
Best of luck. Leicester are totally doomed if not mathematically certain yet. We haven't scored a home goal since December, and no clean sheets either...
"I'm just off to the Maple Leaf Lounge to annoy Trump", "the menu says Entrees", etc
However I cannot critcise because I do this endlessly myself
OGH used to impose a 800 word limit, although this was not imposed on Cyclefree. Her articles came in around the 1200 word mark, for which she was teased. 1200 became known as "the Cyclefree limit". Then I did one around 1400 mark (1400="the Viewcode limit"). Arguments went back and forth until Ydoethur published one around 1800 (1800="the Ydoethur limit"), at which point word limits became pointless. The current limiting factor is the tolerance of the mods.
This article is around the 1600 mark and is well within the Ydoethur limit
(Why actors tend to have airhead views is more interesting. In theory their understanding of the human condition should be strong - perhaps it comes from not understanding the difference between anecdotes and policy).
@TimS 's little narrative has been less of a "brag" and more of an observation of the moment. His reservations about transiting through the US and flying with an American carrier, offset by his supporting the Canadian transit lounge. It has been quite an interesting little story. You see it as a "brag" because that is how you roll.
However, I enjoy @TimS's travelogues - I enjoy all the PB travelogues because I am furiously interested in travel (to an almost pathological degree) - so I hope he keeps us posted on Mexico City. I really liked his musings and photos from Senegal, even if they were not *quite* enough to make me go
I don't like the ad. There's a racial discrimination angle to be seen if one so wishes but I suspect any available misunderstanding is more down to incompetence than racist unpleasantness.
I'm a supporter of reforming and retaining an appointed chamber, but I think general sentiment is against that long term.
Also, I would like a combination like this in Government. It would mean we wouldn't be getting a load of golf-club racists (a worry of many with Reform), but we also wouldn't be getting another trip to woke TINA heartbreak hotel (a worry of many with the Tories). Bring it on I say.
The only thing that would make me afraid of such a photoshop creature coming to power would be if it had any of Keir Starmer in it. Since it doesn't, rock on.
I reiterate one of my quick and easy fixes for the Lords, which is to ban ex-MPs until 8 years or two terms has passed (whichever is longer). It's not that ex-MPs make terrible Peers necessarily, but without a gap they are too immersed in day to day partisanship for the role, or they are some old duffer kicked upstairs to convince them to stand down.
Likewise no one who makes a donation to a political party or politician should get an honour or peerage for the same length of time (this includes top union heads), to ensure there is no quid pro quo. It isn't a punishment to decide not to donate money if you want to focus on good works to earn acclaim.
Then you have the other absurd side of argument that places like Russia are genuine democracies because they hold elections.
I'm not sure about the comment about a badly run democracy being able to quickly turn course. It's obviously happened, there are places which are democratic today which were not 40 years ago, but in the last decade it feels like the trend is for democratic standards to slip.
You're also going to hear the Trump Third Term nonsense stop cold in its tracks if this continues.
"Make me a dictator so I can gut your pensions and retirement and raise costs" is not a strategy that any successful despot has ever employed in taking over a prosperous nation.
https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1908307560689787366
Like that MP who got disbarred or the Michael Howard/Fagin poster
These are the worst ratings for any US government’s economic policy since records began.
https://x.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1908140430610321894
Perhaps there was a tiny grr there. However if there was, then it was certainly not some absurd chagrin at being upstaged or whatever, it was jealousy of someone going to an interesting place, even as I am next to the Tien Shan mountains
That is to say, I am so keen on travel even as I am in Kazakhstan when I hear of someone going to Mexico (or Iceland, Namibia, Australia, Toronto, Anglesey on a boat, fuck knows - almost anything) then I get a pang of envy and I want to be doing that AS WELL
I am like the smoker described by Martin Amis who is so addicted to cigarettes even as he's smoking a cigarette he feels the desire to smoke a cigarette. Even as I travel to Kazakhstan I feel the desire to be in Mexico, Montpelier, or Malmo
It is absolutely pathological, and closely linked to my aversion to boredom, but at this late stage in life I have accepted I am not going to change
So you have an increased chance of hearing what an actor thinks about something if they want, and if they are simplistic or wrong about it, their confidence in spouting it will be infuriating.
Surprised the first corporation pardon wasn't a pre-emptive one for the Trump Organisation though.
China has been hit much harder than the USA, not even close. They, and many other nations, have treated us unsustainably badly. We have been the dumb and helpless "whipping post," but not any longer. We are bringing back jobs and businesses like never before. Already, more than FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT, and rising fast! THIS IS AN ECONOMIC REVOLUTION, AND WE WILL WIN. HANG TOUGH, it won't be easy, but the end result will be historic. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Net-Right Track On:
Immigration Policy: +3%
Employment/Jobs: -15%
American Foreign Policy: -19%
National Economy: -23%
National Politics: -23%
International Trade: -24%
Inflation: -37%
(Right Track - Wrong Track = Net)
Ipsos / April 2, 2025 / n=1486
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1908199469616926884
"Like, it's both of them right, only in one image together"
"Genius. It's so subtle and nuanced. You deserve a raise"
"I'll take a safe seat candidacy instead, but thanks".