Lancashire is particularly depressing, Reform taking control and 2nd place seems to be Gaza Independents.
Urgh.
What did you honestly expect from endless unfiltered mass immigration, often from cultures alien if not hostile to our values? That immigration which you constantly praise and desire on here?
You get: politiciams elected for their sectarian ethnic/religiius beliefs by those growing, hostile minorities
And you get politicians elected by the frightened majority host culture, that sees its nation's ancient identity disappearing, and want this to stop before its too late
You got exactly what you wished for. And now you whine. Twat
Lancashire is particularly depressing, Reform taking control and 2nd place seems to be Gaza Independents.
Urgh.
What did you honestly expect from endless unfiltered mass immigration, often from cultures alien if not hostile to our values? That immigration which you constantly praise and desire on here?
You get: politiciams elected for their sectarian ethnic/religiius beliefs by those growing, hostile minorities
And you get politicians elected by the frightened majority host culture, that sees its nation's ancient identity disappearing, and want this to stop before its too late
You got exactly what you wished for. And now you whine. Twat
It is hard to argue against that, for sure
People like @Foxy and @BartholomewRoberts and @kinabalu and @OnlyLivingBoy and @Roger and the rest, who want more and more immigration, and think multiculturalism is a fantastic success, should count themselves lucky that, as things stand, the popular right opposition is a relatively humane and domesticated beast like Reform
Nigel Farage is not gonna start shooting boat-people, he's not gonna cancel elections, he won't bring back the noose. Indeed he is criticised by many on the alt.right for being too soft
There is no law to say Britain is magically immune from much nastier political forces, lile the AfD in Germany
We should pray that if and when Farage reaches power and succeeds, the boil is lanced, and British democracy endures. Because the alternative will not be a cosy return to the old politics, it will be something darker
You are being unfair to Bart there. Like me he might believe in free movement but that does not mean he necessarily thinks multiculturalism is a success or ever could be.
Norway has one of the highest immigrant rates for its population of any country in Europe and they make a success of it precisely becuase they don't hold with multiculturalism. If you want to stay and settle in Norway then you become Norwegian. You embrace the language and the culture. It is a system that works and is a very long way from the multiculturalist approach we see in Britain or other parts of Europe. .
The Norwegion approach is impossible here because learning the Norwegian language necessarily implies a serious commitment to Norway and its culture, whereas learning the English language is entirely detached from any commitment to Britain.
Having worked at the Jobcentre, it is surprising how many people you meet who don't speak good enough English to get by. From itinerant kebab shop workers who get by in Turkish to wives of subcontinental corner shop owners whose husbands would apparently prefer them not to know any English.
We need to make it easier, and cheaper, to learn English, and harder to manage without it.
If you can't speak English, and are not a refugee, you should not be able to claim benefits, as you should be deemed not to be available for work.
Refugees excepted, of course. But if you are an economic migrant you should be expected to learn English at your own expense
One of the areas I suspect 'AI' would be 'good enough' as a tutor. At the expense of English Language tutors. But... that's where we're headed.
Osborne/Cameron took away the funding for the local voluntary centre in my patch who had, as one of their big offerings, a number of english language classes for migrants.
Hang on! Hang on just a minute! Is it not the case that they come all the way to this country, an English-speaking country, because they can ALREADY speak English??
No. You live in Ilford. Tell me everyone else who lives in Ilford speaks good enough English to get by, work, go shopping, etc
But we are told by the pro-migrant lobby that the small boat people are fleeing non-English-speaking France to get to English-speaking Blighty. Is that not the case?
I think they are fleeing non-working-cash-in-hand France to get to low-employment-law-compliance Blighty
My understanding was that it is very common that they do actually work for cash in hand in places like France in order to get the money together for the crossing.
I think it is much easier to live under the radar long term in the UK, else they would stay in France
Asylum seekers arent "living under the radar" after arriving in small boats. They are picked up before or after landing and claiming asylum, so very much on the countries radar. They are then dispersed around the country and not allowed to work until granted leave to remain, at which point they have no need to work illegally.
I am sure that there are people working illegally under the radar, both UK citizens working cash in hand and immigrants. These are mostly people overstaying visas or on tourist or other visas, rather than asylum seekers.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
I always have said that the economic effect of Brexit would be rust rather than bust. I think that still true.
Brexit has quite obviously not made our economy more dynamic, nor improved our politics.
Why else would so many be in despair, to the point of voting for a snake oil salesman like Farage?
ICE told Washington business owner to come in for green card interview—it was trap to detain him
He showed paperwork that he's been on the legal path to citizenship for 3 years—with no criminal record
"If he didn't show up it would have been a denial, he showed and here we are" explained his wife.
"Sergio showed up to the interview because he had nothing to hide and wanted to do the right thing."
Sergio Cerdio Gomez is married to a U.S. citizen with two small children together.
They own a food truck in Kennewick, Washington called "Hibachi Explosion"—it is a legally registered business, he pays taxes, and is not hiding from anyone.
'Unparalleled' snake antivenom made from man bitten 200 times
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5d0l7el36o.amp The blood of a US man who deliberately injected himself with snake venom for nearly two decades has led to an "unparalleled" antivenom, say scientists. Antibodies found in Tim Friede's blood have been shown to protect against fatal doses from a wide range of species in animal tests. Current therapies have to match the specific species of venomous snake anyone has been bitten by. But Mr Friede's 18-year mission could be a significant step in finding a universal antivenom against all snakebites - which kill up to 14,000 people a year and leave three times as many needing amputations or facing permanent disability. In total, Mr Friede has endured more than 200 bites and more than 700 injections of venom he prepared from some of the world's deadliest snakes, including multiple species of mambas, cobras, taipans and kraits...
..Antivenom is currently made by injecting small doses of snake venom into animals, such as horses. Their immune system fights the venom by producing antibodies and these are harvested to be used as a therapy. But venom and antivenom have to be closely matched because the toxins in a venomous bite vary from one species to another. There is even wide variety within the same species – antivenom made from snakes in India is less effective against the same species in Sri Lanka...
Newsnight - yet again pollster saying the WFA cut was a disaster amongst voters. "totemically unpopular". Every focus group.
How many f*cking times does Reeves need to hear this?
Reeves cutting WFA is like George Osborne's omnishambles budget. Both new Chancellors asked the Treasury for its wishlist of anomalies to remove. Neither Chancellor asked themselves why their predecessors had allowed these anomalies to continue; neither considered the politics.
Once again, the judgment of the BBC has to be questioned. The Harry interview looks nothing more than a cynical ploy to cover up the stunning success of Reform in the local elections.
If Reform include the abolition of the licence fee in their manifesto, I might vote for them.
Once again, the judgment of the BBC has to be questioned. The Harry interview looks nothing more than a cynical ploy to cover up the stunning success of Reform in the local elections.
If Reform include the abolition of the licence fee in their manifesto, I might vote for them.
That is an odd interpretation bearing in mind the gurning Farage had wall to wall coverage yesterday on the BBC. They couldn't get enough of his Trumpian rhetoric and driving the narrative that the Tories were finished.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
No dude, you have.
This project you voted for is now as unpopular as it's ever been.
And the party you voted for over the last decade is destroyed.
No idea if it's just noise or whether he really is in trouble.
I was initially reluctant to belive that he would lose, but he's been spending a lot of time in his own constituency. He's paid something like 3 or 4 visits during the last couple of weeks.
I put in a bit of money on him losing, just based on this fact. He wouldn't be getting spooked unless his own internal polling showed that he was in trouble.
A comment on the Aussie Pollbludger site mentions an Exit Poll of 200 Pre-poll voters, which shows a fall in his primary vote to 35% and a rise in the Labor primary to 37%. Pre-polls are usually favourable to Labor, but this is still a reasonably significant change from the 2022 Pre-poll primaries of 40% to Dutton & 28% to Labor. It might be enough to make him lose, given his thin 1.7% margin.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
So, as the report claimed Brexit is not as hard as expected?
Once again, the judgment of the BBC has to be questioned. The Harry interview looks nothing more than a cynical ploy to cover up the stunning success of Reform in the local elections.
If Reform include the abolition of the licence fee in their manifesto, I might vote for them.
As you can see from the link, half the newspapers lead on Harry; half on Nige. If you want to blame anyone, blame the judge who finished Harry's court case before the weekend. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qwrzq0pgwo
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
No dude, you have.
This project you voted for is now as unpopular as it's ever been.
And the party you voted for over the last decade is destroyed.
You're just bitter.
LOL
as ever your ability to remember what others have told you is zilch.
I havent voted Tory for a decade - something Ive told you repeatedly.
I dont say much about Brexit except to castigate the tedium of people like you who just cant get over it and fill the site with whiney crap.
And as for populatity when the consequences of rejoin are brought back in to focus we wouldnt. Voters have simply forgotten the costs of being in.
As for being bitter who am I bitter against ? My prime reason for voting leave was because I wasnt happy with the state of british politics and thought we needed to break the mould. It's taken a bit longer than I expected but based on yesterday Ive got pretty much what I wanted.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
No dude, you have.
This project you voted for is now as unpopular as it's ever been.
And the party you voted for over the last decade is destroyed.
You're just bitter.
LOL
as ever youre ability to remember what others have told you is zilch.
I havent voted Tory for a decade - something Ive told you repeatedly.
I dont say much about Brexit except to castigate the tedium of people like you who just cant get over it and fill the site with whiney crap.
And as for populatity when the consequences of rejoin are brought back in to focus we wouldnt. Voters have simply forgotten the costs of being in.
As for being bitter who am I bitter against ? My prime reason for voting leave was because I wasnt happy with the state of british politics and thought we needed to break the mould. It's taken a bit longer than I expected but based on yesterday Ive got pretty much what I wanted.
My mistake, I was replying to Casino, and missed your pitching in.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
Actually weve had nothing to show since 2008. So thats 17 years, 10 of which we were still in the EU. The UK issue isnt an in or out problem it's the whole system just doesnt work. And were still there.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
No dude, you have.
This project you voted for is now as unpopular as it's ever been.
And the party you voted for over the last decade is destroyed.
You're just bitter.
LOL
as ever youre ability to remember what others have told you is zilch.
I havent voted Tory for a decade - something Ive told you repeatedly.
I dont say much about Brexit except to castigate the tedium of people like you who just cant get over it and fill the site with whiney crap.
And as for populatity when the consequences of rejoin are brought back in to focus we wouldnt. Voters have simply forgotten the costs of being in.
As for being bitter who am I bitter against ? My prime reason for voting leave was because I wasnt happy with the state of british politics and thought we needed to break the mould. It's taken a bit longer than I expected but based on yesterday Ive got pretty much what I wanted.
My mistake, I was replying to Casino, and missed your pitching in.
If you wanted Farage, then you're welcome to him.
I havent voted Farage either. But Im waiting to see how politics evolves, we might now be in with a chance what our representative start to reconnect with the voters.
I am surprised the WFA is being given as a major reason. It has totally slipped away from the headlines.
I would have guessed it was PIP cuts (as that got lots and lots of coverage), immigration and economy is still in bad shape. Perhaps NI increase as it has just come in and I am sure within smaller businesses it has been discussed with employees just how much extra it is costing them.
It's all Gordon Brown's fault for setting it up in the first place for all pensioners regardless of how well-off they were. At some point it was always going to be means-tested, and thus cause untold disgruntlement amongst those having something taken away from them.
No. Brown introduced a universal benefit for WFA. Child benefit is universal. There is nothing wrong with universal benefits - saves on a ton of admin and binds people who otherwise are net contributors to idea of welfare state.
Now you could argue that we can't afford universal benefits anymore but good luck with that down at Rosemary Avenue, Co. Durham, whilst they have a 4* hotel stuffed full of migrants eating a full english all paid by the state.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
No dude, you have.
This project you voted for is now as unpopular as it's ever been.
And the party you voted for over the last decade is destroyed.
You're just bitter.
LOL
as ever youre ability to remember what others have told you is zilch.
I havent voted Tory for a decade - something Ive told you repeatedly.
I dont say much about Brexit except to castigate the tedium of people like you who just cant get over it and fill the site with whiney crap.
And as for populatity when the consequences of rejoin are brought back in to focus we wouldnt. Voters have simply forgotten the costs of being in.
As for being bitter who am I bitter against ? My prime reason for voting leave was because I wasnt happy with the state of british politics and thought we needed to break the mould. It's taken a bit longer than I expected but based on yesterday Ive got pretty much what I wanted.
My mistake, I was replying to Casino, and missed your pitching in.
If you wanted Farage, then you're welcome to him.
I havent voted Farage either. But Im waiting to see how politics evolves, we might now be in with a chance what our representative start to reconnect with the voters.
LOL back at you for that hope. I'd say our politics are as unlikely to deliver anything useful as they've ever been.
Some of the comments here certainly dispel any "couldn't happen here" complacency about the Trump phenomenon.
It did happen here. We had Liz Truss as PM.
The crucial difference is that because Parliament can fire a sitting PM at any moment simply by a few MPs abstaining in a vote of no confidence, she was very quickly removed when it was obvious just how crazy she was.
Trump is a hundred times worse, but it's nearly impossible to remove him as it would take a positive vote of two thirds of the House and Senate (or just the Senate, if impeached) which is not going to happen because about 40% are as batshit as he is.
Lancashire is particularly depressing, Reform taking control and 2nd place seems to be Gaza Independents.
Urgh.
What did you honestly expect from endless unfiltered mass immigration, often from cultures alien if not hostile to our values? That immigration which you constantly praise and desire on here?
You get: politiciams elected for their sectarian ethnic/religiius beliefs by those growing, hostile minorities
And you get politicians elected by the frightened majority host culture, that sees its nation's ancient identity disappearing, and want this to stop before its too late
You got exactly what you wished for. And now you whine. Twat
Lancashire is particularly depressing, Reform taking control and 2nd place seems to be Gaza Independents.
Urgh.
What did you honestly expect from endless unfiltered mass immigration, often from cultures alien if not hostile to our values? That immigration which you constantly praise and desire on here?
You get: politiciams elected for their sectarian ethnic/religiius beliefs by those growing, hostile minorities
And you get politicians elected by the frightened majority host culture, that sees its nation's ancient identity disappearing, and want this to stop before its too late
You got exactly what you wished for. And now you whine. Twat
It is hard to argue against that, for sure
People like @Foxy and @BartholomewRoberts and @kinabalu and @OnlyLivingBoy and @Roger and the rest, who want more and more immigration, and think multiculturalism is a fantastic success, should count themselves lucky that, as things stand, the popular right opposition is a relatively humane and domesticated beast like Reform
Nigel Farage is not gonna start shooting boat-people, he's not gonna cancel elections, he won't bring back the noose. Indeed he is criticised by many on the alt.right for being too soft
There is no law to say Britain is magically immune from much nastier political forces, lile the AfD in Germany
We should pray that if and when Farage reaches power and succeeds, the boil is lanced, and British democracy endures. Because the alternative will not be a cosy return to the old politics, it will be something darker
You are being unfair to Bart there. Like me he might believe in free movement but that does not mean he necessarily thinks multiculturalism is a success or ever could be.
Norway has one of the highest immigrant rates for its population of any country in Europe and they make a success of it precisely becuase they don't hold with multiculturalism. If you want to stay and settle in Norway then you become Norwegian. You embrace the language and the culture. It is a system that works and is a very long way from the multiculturalist approach we see in Britain or other parts of Europe. .
The Norwegion approach is impossible here because learning the Norwegian language necessarily implies a serious commitment to Norway and its culture, whereas learning the English language is entirely detached from any commitment to Britain.
You don't need any commitment to Britain other than abiding by the law, supporting yourself if able, and being a good person.
That's it. There's nothing else. There's no 'glue that binds', no mystical unifying concept of who 'we' are or what 'we' are. That's all nonsense imo.
Queueing. Don't forget about our ability to queue.
Japanese stores have marks on the supermarket floors to indicate where you should queue. If you're not on the marks, they will gently indicate the correct position to you.
Train platforms (shock horror) have signs to show 'women only' carriages. None of this foreign 'free-for-all'. Trump would go ape-shit.
I am surprised the WFA is being given as a major reason. It has totally slipped away from the headlines.
I would have guessed it was PIP cuts (as that got lots and lots of coverage), immigration and economy is still in bad shape. Perhaps NI increase as it has just come in and I am sure within smaller businesses it has been discussed with employees just how much extra it is costing them.
It's all Gordon Brown's fault for setting it up in the first place for all pensioners regardless of how well-off they were. At some point it was always going to be means-tested, and thus cause untold disgruntlement amongst those having something taken away from them.
No. Brown introduced a universal benefit for WFA. Child benefit is universal. There is nothing wrong with universal benefits - saves on a ton of admin and binds people who otherwise are net contributors to idea of welfare state.
Now you could argue that we can't afford universal benefits anymore but good luck with that down at Rosemary Avenue, Co. Durham, whilst they have a 4* hotel stuffed full of migrants eating a full english all paid by the state.
No asylum seeker is living a 4* experience.
Which, to be strictly fair, is not quite the accusation. But it's an important innuendo.
What everyone wants is government cuts that only harm undesirables. That could be council staff working from home, DEI officers, people selling low-carbon solutions or people faking mental ill-health as a malingering strategy.
The implication is that if we take money from those people, we don't have to take it from the good people, like (not) freezing pensioners who (didn't) win the war for us. (Remember that the quirky operation of the triple lock has given pensions a double boost bigger than the WFA.)
Farage is popular because he claims that he can save lots of money without hurting good people. Put like that, it's surprising getting didn't sweep even more of the board than he did. That it's almost certainly not true is why the important bit of democracy is the vote at the end of a politician's term
We hear a lot about Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is the official White House account. What next, a picture of him dressed as the Last King of Scotland. This is Idi Amin levels of narcissism and lunacy.
In electricity generation, we talk about reliable baseload plus peaking. (I've taught the lessons, including the one about the island with the different potential resources.)
Talk of baseload implies you build as much nuclear or tidal as you need for the minimum expected need (it used to be coal), and top-up with something flexible. But the key thing is more to generate as much cheap as you can, then top up with flexible but more expensive.
Solar and wind are cheap, from an engineering point of view. Nuclear and tidal aren't.
I am surprised the WFA is being given as a major reason. It has totally slipped away from the headlines.
I would have guessed it was PIP cuts (as that got lots and lots of coverage), immigration and economy is still in bad shape. Perhaps NI increase as it has just come in and I am sure within smaller businesses it has been discussed with employees just how much extra it is costing them.
It's all Gordon Brown's fault for setting it up in the first place for all pensioners regardless of how well-off they were. At some point it was always going to be means-tested, and thus cause untold disgruntlement amongst those having something taken away from them.
No. Brown introduced a universal benefit for WFA. Child benefit is universal. There is nothing wrong with universal benefits - saves on a ton of admin and binds people who otherwise are net contributors to idea of welfare state.
Now you could argue that we can't afford universal benefits anymore but good luck with that down at Rosemary Avenue, Co. Durham, whilst they have a 4* hotel stuffed full of migrants eating a full english all paid by the state.
No asylum seeker is living a 4* experience.
Which, to be strictly fair, is not quite the accusation. But it's an important innuendo.
What everyone wants is government cuts that only harm undesirables. That could be council staff working from home,
Checks all the local councils who have downsized office space (good job to as it’s currently used for Treasury North in Darlo and it’s saving Stockton over £1m a year).
Then remembers that the new HMRC Newcastle office is half the size of their offices in Longbenton.
Basically you can’t shift workers back to the office there isn’t the space for them
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
Actually weve had nothing to show since 2008. So thats 17 years, 10 of which we were still in the EU. The UK issue isnt an in or out problem it's the whole system just doesnt work. And were still there.
Behave. We've had 14 years of inch perfect Conservative Governments since 2008.
I thought the metric we used to claim Brexit victory was to confirm impressive fractional UK growth versus lacklustre EU growth.
I am surprised the WFA is being given as a major reason. It has totally slipped away from the headlines.
I would have guessed it was PIP cuts (as that got lots and lots of coverage), immigration and economy is still in bad shape. Perhaps NI increase as it has just come in and I am sure within smaller businesses it has been discussed with employees just how much extra it is costing them.
It's all Gordon Brown's fault for setting it up in the first place for all pensioners regardless of how well-off they were. At some point it was always going to be means-tested, and thus cause untold disgruntlement amongst those having something taken away from them.
No. Brown introduced a universal benefit for WFA. Child benefit is universal. There is nothing wrong with universal benefits - saves on a ton of admin and binds people who otherwise are net contributors to idea of welfare state.
Now you could argue that we can't afford universal benefits anymore but good luck with that down at Rosemary Avenue, Co. Durham, whilst they have a 4* hotel stuffed full of migrants eating a full english all paid by the state.
No asylum seeker is living a 4* experience.
Which, to be strictly fair, is not quite the accusation. But it's an important innuendo.
What everyone wants is government cuts that only harm undesirables. That could be council staff working from home,
Checks all the local councils who have downsized office space (good job to as it’s currently used for Treasury North in Darlo and it’s saving Stockton over £1m a year).
Then remembers that the new HMRC Newcastle office is half the size of their offices in Longbenton.
Basically you can’t shift workers back to the office there isn’t the space for them
Well you can... but it will cost you.
And spending money on council offices is the kind of thing that people really don't like.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Theory: UK grew strongly when in the EU as the government were distracted from doing anything useful for half a decade. Once the government had control, the wheels came off.
We hear a lot about Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is the official White House account. What next, a picture of him dressed as the Last King of Scotland. This is Idi Amin levels of narcissism and lunacy.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
He looks very much as I imagine Rodrigo Borgia.
That's really harsh.
Borgia was on the plump side, but he had a much better diet than Trump so would have had clear skin.
In electricity generation, we talk about reliable baseload plus peaking. (I've taught the lessons, including the one about the island with the different potential resources.)
Talk of baseload implies you build as much nuclear or tidal as you need for the minimum expected need (it used to be coal), and top-up with something flexible. But the key thing is more to generate as much cheap as you can, then top up with flexible but more expensive.
Solar and wind are cheap, from an engineering point of view. Nuclear and tidal aren't.
An interesting piece Robert. I'd just note you've ignored the other elephant in the room, waste and decommissioning costs. As govts normally completely underwrite that liability that's understandable from an investor pov. Employing a contractor to undertake decommissioning 200 years after it's been closed must be a substantial additional cost.
Some of the comments here certainly dispel any "couldn't happen here" complacency about the Trump phenomenon.
It did happen here. We had Liz Truss as PM.
The crucial difference is that because Parliament can fire a sitting PM at any moment simply by a few MPs abstaining in a vote of no confidence, she was very quickly removed when it was obvious just how crazy she was.
Trump is a hundred times worse, but it's nearly impossible to remove him as it would take a positive vote of two thirds of the House and Senate (or just the Senate, if impeached) which is not going to happen because about 40% are as batshit as he is.
Now we have our own gurning narcissist. Fawned over by mainstream media and reverred by racists and brain dead populists across towns and shires. Ignore at your peril. With a landslide parliamentary majority Reform can do what they want, sell the NHS, repatriate foreigners and British nationals alike and all whilst fighting each other like rats in a sack.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
You're a liar. There are hundreds of posts from you on this from 2016 to 2022. I could go through and extract them all but that would be a waste of my time, boring for everyone else, and you'd still try and wriggle out of it.
So we just satisfy ourselves with the fact you're a liar.
Some of us made a lot of money out of nuclear - supplying replaceable C&I parts with a short life and a high margin. They were and still are some of the safest equipment out there as failure is not an option.
Commercially it would be great if there was a renaissance. Logically, renewables have left them far behind in terms of cost, flexibility and technology. Look at the farce with the two new ones they are trying to build.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
I am surprised the WFA is being given as a major reason. It has totally slipped away from the headlines.
I would have guessed it was PIP cuts (as that got lots and lots of coverage), immigration and economy is still in bad shape. Perhaps NI increase as it has just come in and I am sure within smaller businesses it has been discussed with employees just how much extra it is costing them.
It's all Gordon Brown's fault for setting it up in the first place for all pensioners regardless of how well-off they were. At some point it was always going to be means-tested, and thus cause untold disgruntlement amongst those having something taken away from them.
No. Brown introduced a universal benefit for WFA. Child benefit is universal. There is nothing wrong with universal benefits - saves on a ton of admin and binds people who otherwise are net contributors to idea of welfare state.
Now you could argue that we can't afford universal benefits anymore but good luck with that down at Rosemary Avenue, Co. Durham, whilst they have a 4* hotel stuffed full of migrants eating a full english all paid by the state.
No asylum seeker is living a 4* experience.
Which, to be strictly fair, is not quite the accusation. But it's an important innuendo.
What everyone wants is government cuts that only harm undesirables. That could be council staff working from home, DEI officers, people selling low-carbon solutions or people faking mental ill-health as a malingering strategy.
The implication is that if we take money from those people, we don't have to take it from the good people, like (not) freezing pensioners who (didn't) win the war for us. (Remember that the quirky operation of the triple lock has given pensions a double boost bigger than the WFA.)
Farage is popular because he claims that he can save lots of money without hurting good people. Put like that, it's surprising getting didn't sweep even more of the board than he did. That it's almost certainly not true is why the important bit of democracy is the vote at the end of a politician's term
Yes, this is true.
The real meaningful cuts in social welfare are hard, as are the growth reforms to our "due process" state, and heavy regulatory environment, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't sense much political skill or appetite in Reform for hard work.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
He looks very much as I imagine Rodrigo Borgia.
That's really harsh.
Borgia was on the plump side, but he had a much better diet than Trump so would have had clear skin.
This version of Borgia resembles Trump (nb the scene is a bit gruesome)
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
Actually weve had nothing to show since 2008. So thats 17 years, 10 of which we were still in the EU. The UK issue isnt an in or out problem it's the whole system just doesnt work. And were still there.
Behave. We've had 14 years of inch perfect Conservative Governments since 2008.
I thought the metric we used to claim Brexit victory was to confirm impressive fractional UK growth versus lacklustre EU growth.
The 2008 credit crunch really took the wind out of our sails, and we've been becalmed ever since.
It's fascinating as no-one (at least not to my satisfaction) has ever really been able to explain why, unless the whole 15-year period that came before was a globalisation bubble.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
DJT knows exactly what he is doing with shit like this. He does it in the certain knowledge that Trump haters will give it a signal boost.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
There are many reasons to loathe Trump, this isn’t one of them
Like it or not Trump has a good sense of humour: he can be genuinely funny, and at his own expense. eg he’s narcissistic but he sometimes mock his own narcissism - that’s what he’s doing here. It’s a joke
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
DJT knows exactly what he is doing with shit like this. He does it in the certain knowledge that Trump haters will give it a signal boost.
Um. Everyone gives Trump a signal boost.
Everyone.
There's nothing we love more than talking about Trump.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
You correctly capitalised He in your first paragraph. Please remember to capitalise His pronouns throughout.
I somehow missed this from last week. Trump says of His promise to end the Ukraine war "on day one"
"Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest"
CNN are actually still bothering to factcheck Him:
I am surprised the WFA is being given as a major reason. It has totally slipped away from the headlines.
I would have guessed it was PIP cuts (as that got lots and lots of coverage), immigration and economy is still in bad shape. Perhaps NI increase as it has just come in and I am sure within smaller businesses it has been discussed with employees just how much extra it is costing them.
It's all Gordon Brown's fault for setting it up in the first place for all pensioners regardless of how well-off they were. At some point it was always going to be means-tested, and thus cause untold disgruntlement amongst those having something taken away from them.
No. Brown introduced a universal benefit for WFA. Child benefit is universal. There is nothing wrong with universal benefits - saves on a ton of admin and binds people who otherwise are net contributors to idea of welfare state.
Now you could argue that we can't afford universal benefits anymore but good luck with that down at Rosemary Avenue, Co. Durham, whilst they have a 4* hotel stuffed full of migrants eating a full english all paid by the state.
No asylum seeker is living a 4* experience.
Which, to be strictly fair, is not quite the accusation. But it's an important innuendo.
What everyone wants is government cuts that only harm undesirables. That could be council staff working from home, DEI officers, people selling low-carbon solutions or people faking mental ill-health as a malingering strategy.
The implication is that if we take money from those people, we don't have to take it from the good people, like (not) freezing pensioners who (didn't) win the war for us. (Remember that the quirky operation of the triple lock has given pensions a double boost bigger than the WFA.)
Farage is popular because he claims that he can save lots of money without hurting good people. Put like that, it's surprising getting didn't sweep even more of the board than he did. That it's almost certainly not true is why the important bit of democracy is the vote at the end of a politician's term
Put like that, it's a surprise that even the village idiot believes him.
Like it or not Trump has a good sense of humour: he can be genuinely funny, and at his own expense. eg he’s narcissistic but he sometimes mock his own narcissism - that’s what he’s doing here. It’s a joke
We hear a lot about Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is the official White House account. What next, a picture of him dressed as the Last King of Scotland. This is Idi Amin levels of narcissism and lunacy.
I saw a little bit of the "round the cabinet public nutlickdoxology" he had them do.
Next,I suggest a golden (3:1 scale) replica of Mr Trump's penis that all members of the Cabinet have to kneel down and ritually fellate on entry to the cabinet room, televised.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
Actually weve had nothing to show since 2008. So thats 17 years, 10 of which we were still in the EU. The UK issue isnt an in or out problem it's the whole system just doesnt work. And were still there.
Behave. We've had 14 years of inch perfect Conservative Governments since 2008.
I thought the metric we used to claim Brexit victory was to confirm impressive fractional UK growth versus lacklustre EU growth.
The 2008 credit crunch really took the wind out of our sails, and we've been becalmed ever since.
It's fascinating as no-one (at least not to my satisfaction) has ever really been able to explain why, unless the whole 15-year period that came before was a globalisation bubble.
One possible answer is that austerity was the wrong response to the credit crunch. We cut our own wings.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
There are many reasons to loathe Trump, this isn’t one of them
Like it or not Trump has a good sense of humour: he can be genuinely funny, and at his own expense. eg he’s narcissistic but he sometimes mock his own narcissism - that’s what he’s doing here. It’s a joke
Joke or not, this isn't at his own expense you absolute dumdum. Trump genuinely thinks he would be a great pope, the greatest in history.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
Actually weve had nothing to show since 2008. So thats 17 years, 10 of which we were still in the EU. The UK issue isnt an in or out problem it's the whole system just doesnt work. And were still there.
Behave. We've had 14 years of inch perfect Conservative Governments since 2008.
I thought the metric we used to claim Brexit victory was to confirm impressive fractional UK growth versus lacklustre EU growth.
The 2008 credit crunch really took the wind out of our sails, and we've been becalmed ever since.
It's fascinating as no-one (at least not to my satisfaction) has ever really been able to explain why, unless the whole 15-year period that came before was a globalisation bubble.
I thought the 2008 economic crash was down to Gordon Brown closing Lehmann Bros.
Personally I believe everything that followed was due to us offshoring production ( over the previous two decades) to what used to be known as the developing world. It's a thought I have in common with Trump, but unlike Trump I have no idea how to turn that particular cake back into eggs and flour.
Some of us made a lot of money out of nuclear - supplying replaceable C&I parts with a short life and a high margin. They were and still are some of the safest equipment out there as failure is not an option.
Commercially it would be great if there was a renaissance. Logically, renewables have left them far behind in terms of cost, flexibility and technology. Look at the farce with the two new ones they are trying to build.
However they have been decommissioning Hunterston for 30 years now I believe and will be lucky to be finished this century, costs a fortune.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
There are many reasons to loathe Trump, this isn’t one of them
Like it or not Trump has a good sense of humour: he can be genuinely funny, and at his own expense. eg he’s narcissistic but he sometimes mock his own narcissism - that’s what he’s doing here. It’s a joke
So was "I'm gonna be a Dictator, but only on day one".
Sorry I read your post, but it was a short one. I am still taking your advice and scrolling past those that are too long to catch my eye. Moving along.
In 2016, when the UK voted for Brexit, I, like most people at The Economist, was super anti Brexit. I think it was a really bad idea. And so when the UK voted for Brexit, I know when I, when I sort of look deep into my psyche.
There was a sort of phenomenon where I was like, I kind of want the UK economy to go down the toilet as a kind of punishment for voting for Brexit. And I think a lot of people did that. And I think, as a result, you were looking for evidence that the UK economy was about to collapse.
And in practice, again, that didn't happen at all.
Very refreshing to hear someone be so honest.
He was in the media, so he wrote about the economy going down the pan.
Similar PBers were on PB, so they constantly posted about the economy going down the pan.
Neither of those things is terribly consequential, but sadly a number of others who felt the same were in important political, administrative and judicial positions.
Bit of strawmanning going on there, though. Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Er, but you haven't just been pointing that out for half a decade that it "just prevented the government doing anything useful". You've been pointing out that it's a complete and utter catastrophe, a disaster, stupid, idiotic and the end of days, posting tweets speculating on industrial collapse, shortages in supermarkets and egging on any EU negotiating line you vaguely saw coming your way.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
It's the most significant policy mistake of the last decade, certainly.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
Youve been Brexit wanking since 2016.
Brexit wanking? Ten years of pulling our plonkers and still nothing to show for it.
Actually weve had nothing to show since 2008. So thats 17 years, 10 of which we were still in the EU. The UK issue isnt an in or out problem it's the whole system just doesnt work. And were still there.
Behave. We've had 14 years of inch perfect Conservative Governments since 2008.
I thought the metric we used to claim Brexit victory was to confirm impressive fractional UK growth versus lacklustre EU growth.
The 2008 credit crunch really took the wind out of our sails, and we've been becalmed ever since.
It's fascinating as no-one (at least not to my satisfaction) has ever really been able to explain why, unless the whole 15-year period that came before was a globalisation bubble.
One possible answer is that austerity was the wrong response to the credit crunch. We cut our own wings.
That the left-wing answer but running a budget deficit of nearly 11% of GDP or £175bn a year, every year, wasn't sustainable, and doesn't cover why deferring it until after 2010 made no difference to the 2008-10 period.
This ancient map corresponds closely (but not exactly) to the division between the 2 current main NOTA parties in England: the Lib Dems in most of Wessex and Mercia, and Reform in the former Danelaw/Northumbria, although Reform's influence extends into Kent and the north-eastern part of Mercia (Cheshire and Staffordshire), much of which are north-east of the former Watling Street.
This is not the only example where electoral results reveal older/ancient boundaries. Other examples include: the Brexit vote in the UK in 2016, where Scotland (and the 6 counties) voted differently to England; the last Polish election, where support for PIS (the Law and Justice party) was much weaker in the Western territories recovered from Germany in 1945; the recent German election, where support for the AfD was concentrated in the 5 provinces of the former DDR; and results in Ukrainian elections (e.g. in 2010) where support for the Ukrainian nationalist parties was weak (and that for pro-Russian parties conversely strongest) in areas that were not part of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1630, most of which are now under Russian control.
I’ll use my daily photo allowance on Trumpapa. Lots of laughter out there that He would be so outrageous as to post this.
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
He looks very much as I imagine Rodrigo Borgia.
That's really harsh.
Borgia was on the plump side, but he had a much better diet than Trump so would have had clear skin.
This version of Borgia resembles Trump (nb the scene is a bit gruesome)
This ancient map corresponds closely (but not exactly) to the division between the 2 current main NOTA parties in England: the Lib Dems in most of Wessex and Mercia, and Reform in the former Danelaw/Northumbria, although Reform's influence extends into Kent and the north-eastern part of Mercia (Cheshire and Staffordshire), much of which are north-east of the former Watling Street.
This is not the only example where electoral results reveal older/ancient boundaries. Other examples include: the Brexit vote in the UK in 2016, where Scotland (and the 6 counties) voted differently to England; the last Polish election, where support for PIS (the Law and Justice party) was much weaker in the Western territories recovered from Germany in 1945; the recent German election, where support for the AfD was concentrated in the 5 provinces of the former DDR; and results in Ukrainian elections (e.g. in 2010) where support for the Ukrainian nationalist parties was weak (and that for pro-Russian parties conversely strongest) in areas that were not part of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1630, most of which are now under Russian control.
There's quite a similarity for the Reform profile specifically with former mining areas. Even within Notts the distribution is close - but again, not exact.
Does anyone have insight on other coalfields?
The diagram to look at may be this one, which is of "Coal Measures" type geology in the UK, as a proxy for "where mines used to be". As the core of communities, including eg social life and adult education, they had a broad reach. Future predictions for other areas ? . My SMPQ.
Comments
I am sure that there are people working illegally under the radar, both UK citizens working cash in hand and immigrants. These are mostly people overstaying visas or on tourist or other visas, rather than asylum seekers.
F1: started writing the pre-sprint/qualifying ramble. One potential bet in mind but the market isn't up yet so I'll hold on posting for a bit.
Or are you claiming Brexit was cost free ?
And as most of us in PB have been pointing out fit about half a decade, the real cost yf Brexit is that it prevented a huge distraction from government doing anything useful for half a decade.
Jack Draper strolls into Madrid Open final as clay breakthrough rolls on
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/may/02/jack-draper-madrid-open-tennis
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/02/runcorn-byelection-voter-displeasure-disengagement-reform-uk
.. Many had voted for Reform UK as a protest against the government. Others expressed their displeasure more creatively. “I’ve never seen so many drawings of penises,” said one seasoned Labour campaigner after examining spoiled ballot papers...
Brexit has quite obviously not made our economy more dynamic, nor improved our politics.
Why else would so many be in despair, to the point of voting for a snake oil salesman like Farage?
https://x.com/Mollyploofkins/status/1918304484847173987
More evidence of the most corrupt administration ever.
(And piss poor value to boot.)
He showed paperwork that he's been on the legal path to citizenship for 3 years—with no criminal record
"If he didn't show up it would have been a denial, he showed and here we are" explained his wife.
"Sergio showed up to the interview because he had nothing to hide and wanted to do the right thing."
Sergio Cerdio Gomez is married to a U.S. citizen with two small children together.
They own a food truck in Kennewick, Washington called "Hibachi Explosion"—it is a legally registered business, he pays taxes, and is not hiding from anyone.
ICE has yet to give the family any answers as to why he was detained.
https://x.com/LongTimeHistory/status/1918442315259232499
It's early days, and deportation numbers aren't yet greatly different from under Biden.
I predict it will get a LOT more unpleasant over the coming year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5d0l7el36o.amp
The blood of a US man who deliberately injected himself with snake venom for nearly two decades has led to an "unparalleled" antivenom, say scientists.
Antibodies found in Tim Friede's blood have been shown to protect against fatal doses from a wide range of species in animal tests.
Current therapies have to match the specific species of venomous snake anyone has been bitten by.
But Mr Friede's 18-year mission could be a significant step in finding a universal antivenom against all snakebites - which kill up to 14,000 people a year and leave three times as many needing amputations or facing permanent disability.
In total, Mr Friede has endured more than 200 bites and more than 700 injections of venom he prepared from some of the world's deadliest snakes, including multiple species of mambas, cobras, taipans and kraits...
..Antivenom is currently made by injecting small doses of snake venom into animals, such as horses. Their immune system fights the venom by producing antibodies and these are harvested to be used as a therapy.
But venom and antivenom have to be closely matched because the toxins in a venomous bite vary from one species to another.
There is even wide variety within the same species – antivenom made from snakes in India is less effective against the same species in Sri Lanka...
If Reform include the abolition of the licence fee in their manifesto, I might vote for them.
Five million not to?
Any steer on the likely outcome? Hard to see Roo Trump winning, but you never know.
Edit - Aussie media pushing the narrative that Dutton may be about to do a passable impression of Pierre Poilievre and lose his own seat in Brisbane.
https://youtu.be/xOB9hcmNdZQ?si=pyeRXzx4R1BBl7dQ&t=16
No idea if it's just noise or whether he really is in trouble.
Don't insult our intelligence. We remember it all.
Recommend taking a photo of all your betslips on your phone and/or writing the bet IDs down and putting them on a computer spreadsheet.
That's what I do. I'm always losing stuff.
Don't give me that of days crap, though.
This project you voted for is now as unpopular as it's ever been.
And the party you voted for over the last decade is destroyed.
You're just bitter.
I put in a bit of money on him losing, just based on this fact. He wouldn't be getting spooked unless his own internal polling showed that he was in trouble.
A comment on the Aussie Pollbludger site mentions an Exit Poll of 200 Pre-poll voters, which shows a fall in his primary vote to 35% and a rise in the Labor primary to 37%. Pre-polls are usually favourable to Labor, but this is still a reasonably significant change from the 2022 Pre-poll primaries of 40% to Dutton & 28% to Labor. It might be enough to make him lose, given his thin 1.7% margin.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2025/05/02/late-polling-yougov-mrp-freshwater-strategy-demosau-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-4516370
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qwrzq0pgwo
as ever your ability to remember what others have told you is zilch.
I havent voted Tory for a decade - something Ive told you repeatedly.
I dont say much about Brexit except to castigate the tedium of people like you who just cant get over it and fill the site with whiney crap.
And as for populatity when the consequences of rejoin are brought back in to focus we wouldnt. Voters have simply forgotten the costs of being in.
As for being bitter who am I bitter against ? My prime reason for voting leave was because I wasnt happy with the state of british politics and thought we needed to break the mould. It's taken a bit longer than I expected but based on yesterday Ive got pretty much what I wanted.
If you wanted Farage, then you're welcome to him.
It's about nuclear power, so prepared to be triggered: https://open.substack.com/pub/robertsmithson1/p/we-need-to-talk-about-nuclear?r=2a9ngu&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I'd say our politics are as unlikely to deliver anything useful as they've ever been.
The crucial difference is that because Parliament can fire a sitting PM at any moment simply by a few MPs abstaining in a vote of no confidence, she was very quickly removed when it was obvious just how crazy she was.
Trump is a hundred times worse, but it's nearly impossible to remove him as it would take a positive vote of two thirds of the House and Senate (or just the Senate, if impeached) which is not going to happen because about 40% are as batshit as he is.
Train platforms (shock horror) have signs to show 'women only' carriages. None of this foreign 'free-for-all'. Trump would go ape-shit.
What everyone wants is government cuts that only harm undesirables. That could be council staff working from home, DEI officers, people selling low-carbon solutions or people faking mental ill-health as a malingering strategy.
The implication is that if we take money from those people, we don't have to take it from the good people, like (not) freezing pensioners who (didn't) win the war for us. (Remember that the quirky operation of the triple lock has given pensions a double boost bigger than the WFA.)
Farage is popular because he claims that he can save lots of money without hurting good people. Put like that, it's surprising getting didn't sweep even more of the board than he did. That it's almost certainly not true is why the important bit of democracy is the vote at the end of a politician's term
We hear a lot about Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is the official White House account. What next, a picture of him dressed as the Last King of Scotland. This is Idi Amin levels of narcissism and lunacy.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1918551922794955196
In electricity generation, we talk about reliable baseload plus peaking. (I've taught the lessons, including the one about the island with the different potential resources.)
Talk of baseload implies you build as much nuclear or tidal as you need for the minimum expected need (it used to be coal), and top-up with something flexible. But the key thing is more to generate as much cheap as you can, then top up with flexible but more expensive.
Solar and wind are cheap, from an engineering point of view. Nuclear and tidal aren't.
Then remembers that the new HMRC Newcastle office is half the size of their offices in Longbenton.
Basically you can’t shift workers back to the office there isn’t the space for them
I thought the metric we used to claim Brexit victory was to confirm impressive fractional UK growth versus lacklustre EU growth.
And spending money on council offices is the kind of thing that people really don't like.
So much gnashing and rending. Polly Tuscany (still alive!) is claiming - like some PBers - that Farage is a “surprisingly poor tactician”
That’s her takeaway from yesterday. And from the last ten years. Nigel Farage is a *surprisingly poor tactician*
She also tries to invent the word “Trumptastrophe” and fails. It may be time for her to go up at grass
Hold on a sec. Just because he’s a sexual deviant he can’t be pope? Are we saying none of them have been? Just because he’s grossly corrupt and immoral that he can’t be pope? Didn’t that used to be part of the job description?
Trump. Saved by God himself if you recall. Why not have a billion people worship Him?
Borgia was on the plump side, but he had a much better diet than Trump so would have had clear skin.
Employing a contractor to undertake decommissioning 200 years after it's been closed must be a substantial additional cost.
Fear and loathing over van dwellers on Bristol's leafy streets
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddevj0jj16o
So we just satisfy ourselves with the fact you're a liar.
Enjoy your day.
Commercially it would be great if there was a renaissance. Logically, renewables have left them far behind in terms of cost, flexibility and technology. Look at the farce with the two new ones they are trying to build.
The real meaningful cuts in social welfare are hard, as are the growth reforms to our "due process" state, and heavy regulatory environment, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't sense much political skill or appetite in Reform for hard work.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0xr9SYXBzWo
Back in the day, when they didn’t like you, they *really* didn’t like you.
It's fascinating as no-one (at least not to my satisfaction) has ever really been able to explain why, unless the whole 15-year period that came before was a globalisation bubble.
Like it or not Trump has a good sense of humour: he can be genuinely funny, and at his own expense. eg he’s narcissistic but he sometimes mock his own narcissism - that’s what he’s doing here. It’s a joke
Everyone.
There's nothing we love more than talking about Trump.
NEW THREAD
I somehow missed this from last week. Trump says of His promise to end the Ukraine war "on day one"
"Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest"
CNN are actually still bothering to factcheck Him:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-war
Fact check: It wasn’t ‘in jest.’ Here are 53 times Trump said he’d end Ukraine war within 24 hours or before taking office
Nothing about this is funny
Next,I suggest a golden (3:1 scale) replica of Mr Trump's penis that all members of the Cabinet have to kneel down and ritually fellate on entry to the cabinet room, televised.
Personally I believe everything that followed was due to us offshoring production ( over the previous two decades) to what used to be known as the developing world. It's a thought I have in common with Trump, but unlike Trump I have no idea how to turn that particular cake back into eggs and flour.
Sorry I read your post, but it was a short one. I am still taking your advice and scrolling past those that are too long to catch my eye. Moving along.
This ancient map corresponds closely (but not exactly) to the division between the 2 current main NOTA parties in England: the Lib Dems in most of Wessex and Mercia, and Reform in the former Danelaw/Northumbria, although Reform's influence extends into Kent and the north-eastern part of Mercia (Cheshire and Staffordshire), much of which are north-east of the former Watling Street.
This is not the only example where electoral results reveal older/ancient boundaries. Other examples include:
the Brexit vote in the UK in 2016, where Scotland (and the 6 counties) voted differently to England;
the last Polish election, where support for PIS (the Law and Justice party) was much weaker in the Western territories recovered from Germany in 1945;
the recent German election, where support for the AfD was concentrated in the 5 provinces of the former DDR; and
results in Ukrainian elections (e.g. in 2010) where support for the Ukrainian nationalist parties was weak (and that for pro-Russian parties conversely strongest) in areas that were not part of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1630, most of which are now under Russian control.
Does anyone have insight on other coalfields?
The diagram to look at may be this one, which is of "Coal Measures" type geology in the UK, as a proxy for "where mines used to be". As the core of communities, including eg social life and adult education, they had a broad reach. Future predictions for other areas ?
Interactive version with more detail.
https://nmrs.org.uk/mines-map/coal-mining-in-the-british-isles/