Quite a shocking story from Peter Tatchell as to how he was treated by the inept Met Police, where he was arrested at the behest of the PSC for holding a sign criticising Israel and Hamas. They objected to the part condemning Hamas.
Also the met told him if he had said ‘Hamas are terrorists’ that’s a potential criminal offence.
WTF? That has to be a mistake as they quite literally are proscribed terrorists.
The Police did say they had arrested him ‘in error’
You would like to think it a mistake by the Met but they do have form when it comes to policing these marches.
If you read the story, it is a bit more nuanced. There were two demos being kept apart, and Tatchell was being ‘edgy’. The police seem to have been looking at it from a breach of the peace (or whatever it is called now) angle.
I did read the story. I’ve also read Tatchell’s feed. It is not really nuanced at all although it is not easy to read due to the constant ads disrupting the text.
Tatchell wasn’t being edgy, he was pointing out Hamas are killing dissidents. He wants to free Gaza from Israel AND Hamas.
The problem seems to be a significant chunk in the PSC are also pro Hamas.
Are there any direct quotes from PSC's organisers condemning Hamas for what they did on October 7th? Or, indeed, for anything Hamas have done?
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
*EU says it will work swiftly to explore British participation in its defence fund. Language there is limited.
We all remember the promise to explore reform to CAP...the being part of the defence fund was touted by Starmer as a big deal.
Europe “oh shit, Russia is threatening us”
UK “don’t worry, we will stand by you, put resources and money into defending Europe as we all stand together”
Europe “ we need a fund to buy weapons as part of this defence and solidarity”
UK “cool, well we have lots of defence manuf” Europe, “uh no, just because you are helping defend us using your military, intelligence capabilities and funding Ukraine it doesn’t mean you get anything back. unless of course you give us a load of extra things to thank us for allowing you to do a load of the heavy lifting in defending our continent and showing solidarity.”
Twats.
I am sure it has nothing to do with this,
European Defense Companies Profit Massively From Ukraine War -In this video we analyze the German defense contractor Rheinmetall and how it has seen its business boom since the outbreak of the Ukraine war.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
Looks like fish gate is over . This from the Guardian.
“Downing Street sources are confirming that a deal has been done, Jessica Elgot reports. She says the EU has also dropped its demand for the extension of the current fishing deal (agreed by Boris Johnson as part of the original post-Brexit deal – and widely seen as generous to the EU) to be pegged to the length of the deal for agrifoods.”
Memo to Kemi re PMQs – don't blame Starmer for Boris's deal. Boris was one of your lot.
I think it's too late for her, either way.
If she'd completely repudiated the Tory legacy from day one, she might have got away with it - it would have at least have the virtue of being accurate self criticism, and would at the very least have made an impact. Any such move now would just be seen as giving in - and of course not doing so means defending the indefensible.
Repudiating the previous Conservative government's legacy from day one is the tactic successfully used by Margaret Thatcher, John Major, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson; and used unsuccessfully by Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. Kemi's problem with this tactic, owing to the split on the right, is deploying it without sending voters to the LibDems or Reform. Her other problem is what we used to call TINA – what does ‘new’ mean? What's the point?
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
You come on here every day and sneer at any arrangement this government agrees. Any positives ignored and what you and the Daily Mail and Telegraph don't like promoted as evidence that the whole affair is a failure.
I don't suppose you were as critical at the time of Johnson and Frost's "oven ready for the microwave" catastrophe.
If you draw the graph of how you would like benefits and tax to result for an individual, then you will get a line starting at whatever mininum you are prepared to allow, then increasing with income, at whatever rates you are inclined to impose.
One efficient implementation, without traps or disincentives, is "tax ALL income; don't means test". Choose the levels according to social and political taste.
Quite a shocking story from Peter Tatchell as to how he was treated by the inept Met Police, where he was arrested at the behest of the PSC for holding a sign criticising Israel and Hamas. They objected to the part condemning Hamas.
Also the met told him if he had said ‘Hamas are terrorists’ that’s a potential criminal offence.
WTF? That has to be a mistake as they quite literally are proscribed terrorists.
The Police did say they had arrested him ‘in error’
You would like to think it a mistake by the Met but they do have form when it comes to policing these marches.
If you read the story, it is a bit more nuanced. There were two demos being kept apart, and Tatchell was being ‘edgy’. The police seem to have been looking at it from a breach of the peace (or whatever it is called now) angle.
I did read the story. I’ve also read Tatchell’s feed. It is not really nuanced at all although it is not easy to read due to the constant ads disrupting the text.
Tatchell wasn’t being edgy, he was pointing out Hamas are killing dissidents. He wants to free Gaza from Israel AND Hamas.
The problem seems to be a significant chunk in the PSC are also pro Hamas.
As far as the police would have been concerned, he was trying to offend both sides. Which means that he was highly likely to be an attacked. They probably had no idea who they were arresting - which makes them even more stupid.
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
Very funny . Re-joining Erasmus and a youth mobility scheme will please Remainers who Labour have been ignoring .
The replacement Turing scheme was now funding just as many as the number who used to go under Erasmus and you can go worldwide on that scheme and as it more generous in some aspects.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
It's been pointed out that aggressive cancers are, by definition, not caught earlier. When was his last scan for this?
The article quotes DJT Jnr, and seemingly comes from TwitterX, so should be treated with a very large pinch of salt. Google suggests it's unusual but far from unknown, for prostate cancer to be metastatic on first diagnosis, but I am not an expert.
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
You come on here every day and sneer at any arrangement this government agrees. Any positives ignored and what you and the Daily Mail and Telegraph don't like promoted as evidence that the whole affair is a failure.
I don't suppose you were as critical at the time of Johnson and Frost's "oven ready for the microwave" catastrophe.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
It's been pointed out that aggressive cancers are, by definition, not caught earlier. When was his last scan for this?
The article quotes DJT Jnr, and seemingly comes from TwitterX, so should be treated with a very large pinch of salt. Google suggests it's unusual but far from unknown, for prostate cancer to be metastatic on first diagnosis, but I am not an expert.
Raised PSA would have been picked up on routine blood tests but is a notoriously unreliable measure.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
It's been pointed out that aggressive cancers are, by definition, not caught earlier. When was his last scan for this?
I had a call last night from one of my longest term friends, now nearly 70, that he has an inoperable cancer - but with a prognosis of several years of life. He is the first person who made me welcome at my first employer period on my University thin sandwich course.
Reminder to self: do the routine age based tests that are offered on national programmes.
Looks like fish gate is over . This from the Guardian.
“Downing Street sources are confirming that a deal has been done, Jessica Elgot reports. She says the EU has also dropped its demand for the extension of the current fishing deal (agreed by Boris Johnson as part of the original post-Brexit deal – and widely seen as generous to the EU) to be pegged to the length of the deal for agrifoods.”
Memo to Kemi re PMQs – don't blame Starmer for Boris's deal. Boris was one of your lot.
I think it's too late for her, either way.
If she'd completely repudiated the Tory legacy from day one, she might have got away with it - it would have at least have the virtue of being accurate self criticism, and would at the very least have made an impact. Any such move now would just be seen as giving in - and of course not doing so means defending the indefensible.
I think you’re right. She’s a total dud and totally invisible. She’s making no impact and simply continuing the trend of the Tories slide in the polls. I meant to reply to a post from @TimS in Lib Dem polling. On recent polls crossover cannot be too far away.
Shes not unintelligent and clearly interested in the thinking and ideas aspects of politics. Some people like that make decent ministers, if they also have reasonable judgement and some managerial ability, whereas others fail because their head is always in the clouds.
The mistake is not to recognise that political leadership is quite a different proposition, and doesn't actually require a lot of thinking. The job is mostly sales, with a good helping of team management, and a little organisation - if you can't find people to do that for you. Intelligent politicians often hanker for the top job - because in our centralised politics, that's where most of the power is - but find the day to day grunt work of keeping the team together and spending your days going round saying the same thing to lots of different people, or listening to the same things from different people, boring and ultimately unfulfilling.
People like that do very well in 'number two' roles where they have a leader willing to trust and listen to them. Think Mandleson (or indeed Brown) in Labour or Gove (Letwin, Stewart...) for the Tories.
Putting such people in the top job is almost always a mistake.
On the other hand, people who are able to communicate and inspire need to have intelligent, thinking people around them, and be willing to rely on their judgement. Reagan was good at that, Trump is not.
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
Very funny . Re-joining Erasmus and a youth mobility scheme will please Remainers who Labour have been ignoring .
The replacement Turing scheme was now funding just as many as the number who used to go under Erasmus and you can go worldwide on that scheme and as it more generous in some aspects.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
The Turing scheme was a downgraded version in relation to the EU and the Tories stuck his name on it to try and dupe the public . It’s not more generous .
In true Brexit tradition, the Eu deal seems to have upset all the right people.
Which is nice...
Can we wait a few hours for the full details ?
The only thing I've seen that seems a concrete trade is this: ..According to EU sources, access to British fishing waters will be granted until the end of June 2038, an extension of 12 years. In return, the agreement on easier checks for food, animal and other agricultural products, known as sanitary and phytosanitary goods (SPS), is indefinite. While the length of the fishing rights deal is likely to prompt criticism from the Conservatives and Reform UK, it is understood that Downing Street pushed back against EU demands for a time-limited SPS deal and a permanent arrangement on fishing..
In true Brexit tradition, the Eu deal seems to have upset all the right people.
Which is nice...
That’s the way forward, rejoice in upsetting the “other side” and rub their noses in “your” victory.
Would it not be more helpful for “your side” if you came up with deals and ideas that didn’t upset the other side and show that closer alignment wasn’t divisive?
Or just more fun to own the Brexiters/libs/whatevers?
To my mind, as someone married to someone who benefitted from the Erasmus scheme, that is a win for us too.
Fishing, to excuse the pun, was already dead in the water after Frost and Johnson.
Eh? I believe North Sea fish stocks have revived somewhat since we left the common fisheries?
Fishing could be part of a win-win.
If I have the numbers right, British fishermen are catching more fish, but ending up with less money in total for it.
The devil will be in the detail, as ever, and whether the Government (unlike the last one) is willing to make appropriate use of the powers it has in its possession.
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
Very funny . Re-joining Erasmus and a youth mobility scheme will please Remainers who Labour have been ignoring .
The replacement Turing scheme was now funding just as many as the number who used to go under Erasmus and you can go worldwide on that scheme and as it more generous in some aspects.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
The Turing scheme was a downgraded version in relation to the EU and the Tories stuck his name on it to try and dupe the public . It’s not more generous .
The Turing scheme pays more in relation to travel costs and you can go worldwide not just Europe. It can be that bad a deal if basically just as many people are taking advantage of it as Erasmus. It fully subscribed every year.
A sensible thing for the UK government to do would be merge both, you can do take advantage of Erasmus, but you can also still go to non-EU as well.
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
Very funny . Re-joining Erasmus and a youth mobility scheme will please Remainers who Labour have been ignoring .
The replacement Turing scheme was now funding just as many as the number who used to go under Erasmus and you can go worldwide on that scheme and as it more generous in some aspects.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
The Turing scheme was a downgraded version in relation to the EU and the Tories stuck his name on it to try and dupe the public . It’s not more generous .
The biggest problem with staying in the Erasmus scheme was the price quoted - somewhere between "Make my finances well by soaking you" and a "Fuck off quote"*. IIRC Switzerland turned down a similar deal.
Have they changed the offer?
*The classic of that genre was the EU vaccine scheme for COVID. The UK was offered - "Put your money into the scheme. You will have no say in what vaccines are procured. You will have no say in how the vaccines are distributed."
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
Very funny . Re-joining Erasmus and a youth mobility scheme will please Remainers who Labour have been ignoring .
The replacement Turing scheme was now funding just as many as the number who used to go under Erasmus and you can go worldwide on that scheme and as it more generous in some aspects.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
The Turing scheme was a downgraded version in relation to the EU and the Tories stuck his name on it to try and dupe the public . It’s not more generous .
The Turing scheme pays more in relation to travel costs and you can go worldwide not just Europe. It can be that bad a deal if basically just as many people are taking advantage of it as Erasmus. It fully subscribed every year.
Nothing wrong then with keeping that aswell as re-joining Erasmus . It’s a win win then .
On the EU agreement, I'm also interested in some things I have not seen reported. For example:
Where are we on equal recognition of the City? What about Pet Passports? (We get 487 dogs for scale, not just one.) What about full access to Galileo? And European Arrest Warrants?
Last time round I was in the "Norway-plus / EFTA" type of camp.
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
Very funny . Re-joining Erasmus and a youth mobility scheme will please Remainers who Labour have been ignoring .
The replacement Turing scheme was now funding just as many as the number who used to go under Erasmus and you can go worldwide on that scheme and as it more generous in some aspects.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
The Turing scheme was a downgraded version in relation to the EU and the Tories stuck his name on it to try and dupe the public . It’s not more generous .
Turing was also worldwide, and I think keeping the two in parallel would deliver wider opportunity than Erasmus alone.
But the Treasury, through their spokesperson Rachel Reeves, may have something to say on that.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
It's been pointed out that aggressive cancers are, by definition, not caught earlier. When was his last scan for this?
The article quotes DJT Jnr, and seemingly comes from TwitterX, so should be treated with a very large pinch of salt. Google suggests it's unusual but far from unknown, for prostate cancer to be metastatic on first diagnosis, but I am not an expert.
Raised PSA would have been picked up on routine blood tests but is a notoriously unreliable measure.
PSA is unreliable towards false positives - that is, it shows an elevated level and hints at cancer more often than people actually have cancer. As I understand it, a false negative (normal range PSA, but you have cancer) is extremely uncommon.
Looks like fish gate is over . This from the Guardian.
“Downing Street sources are confirming that a deal has been done, Jessica Elgot reports. She says the EU has also dropped its demand for the extension of the current fishing deal (agreed by Boris Johnson as part of the original post-Brexit deal – and widely seen as generous to the EU) to be pegged to the length of the deal for agrifoods.”
Memo to Kemi re PMQs – don't blame Starmer for Boris's deal. Boris was one of your lot.
To be fair to Starmer he's trying to make Brexit work as well as it can (not particularly well but we are where we are), which none of the people associated with Vote Leave have ever bothered to do.
To my mind, as someone married to someone who benefitted from the Erasmus scheme, that is a win for us too.
Fishing, to excuse the pun, was already dead in the water after Frost and Johnson.
Eh? I believe North Sea fish stocks have revived somewhat since we left the common fisheries?
They have. The Common Fisheries policy had too much politics in it - allocating fish stocks that weren't there to appease politicians in various countries.
In true Brexit tradition, the Eu deal seems to have upset all the right people.
Which is nice...
That’s the way forward, rejoice in upsetting the “other side” and rub their noses in “your” victory.
Would it not be more helpful for “your side” if you came up with deals and ideas that didn’t upset the other side and show that closer alignment wasn’t divisive?
Or just more fun to own the Brexiters/libs/whatevers?
Am I misremembering the "suck it up losers, you lost" narrative on here for all those years up until the "oven ready" deal?
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
Quite a shocking story from Peter Tatchell as to how he was treated by the inept Met Police, where he was arrested at the behest of the PSC for holding a sign criticising Israel and Hamas. They objected to the part condemning Hamas.
Also the met told him if he had said ‘Hamas are terrorists’ that’s a potential criminal offence.
WTF? That has to be a mistake as they quite literally are proscribed terrorists.
The Police did say they had arrested him ‘in error’
You would like to think it a mistake by the Met but they do have form when it comes to policing these marches.
If you read the story, it is a bit more nuanced. There were two demos being kept apart, and Tatchell was being ‘edgy’. The police seem to have been looking at it from a breach of the peace (or whatever it is called now) angle.
I did read the story. I’ve also read Tatchell’s feed. It is not really nuanced at all although it is not easy to read due to the constant ads disrupting the text.
Tatchell wasn’t being edgy, he was pointing out Hamas are killing dissidents. He wants to free Gaza from Israel AND Hamas.
The problem seems to be a significant chunk in the PSC are also pro Hamas.
Are there any direct quotes from PSC's organisers condemning Hamas for what they did on October 7th? Or, indeed, for anything Hamas have done?
‘ An offensive launched from Gaza can only be understood in the context of Israel’s ongoing military occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, and imposition of a system of oppression that meets the legal definition of apartheid, which under international law constitutes a crime against humanity. ’
Looks like fish gate is over . This from the Guardian.
“Downing Street sources are confirming that a deal has been done, Jessica Elgot reports. She says the EU has also dropped its demand for the extension of the current fishing deal (agreed by Boris Johnson as part of the original post-Brexit deal – and widely seen as generous to the EU) to be pegged to the length of the deal for agrifoods.”
Memo to Kemi re PMQs – don't blame Starmer for Boris's deal. Boris was one of your lot.
To be fair to Starmer he's trying to make Brexit work as well as it can (not particularly well but we are where we are), which none of the people associated with Vote Leave have ever bothered to do.
Exactly this
Brexiteers couldn't agree on what a "good Brexit" looked like in Government.
Quite a shocking story from Peter Tatchell as to how he was treated by the inept Met Police, where he was arrested at the behest of the PSC for holding a sign criticising Israel and Hamas. They objected to the part condemning Hamas.
Also the met told him if he had said ‘Hamas are terrorists’ that’s a potential criminal offence.
WTF? That has to be a mistake as they quite literally are proscribed terrorists.
The Police did say they had arrested him ‘in error’
You would like to think it a mistake by the Met but they do have form when it comes to policing these marches.
If you read the story, it is a bit more nuanced. There were two demos being kept apart, and Tatchell was being ‘edgy’. The police seem to have been looking at it from a breach of the peace (or whatever it is called now) angle.
I did read the story. I’ve also read Tatchell’s feed. It is not really nuanced at all although it is not easy to read due to the constant ads disrupting the text.
Tatchell wasn’t being edgy, he was pointing out Hamas are killing dissidents. He wants to free Gaza from Israel AND Hamas.
The problem seems to be a significant chunk in the PSC are also pro Hamas.
Are there any direct quotes from PSC's organisers condemning Hamas for what they did on October 7th? Or, indeed, for anything Hamas have done?
‘ An offensive launched from Gaza can only be understood in the context of Israel’s ongoing military occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, and imposition of a system of oppression that meets the legal definition of apartheid, which under international law constitutes a crime against humanity. ’
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
To my mind, as someone married to someone who benefitted from the Erasmus scheme, that is a win for us too.
Fishing, to excuse the pun, was already dead in the water after Frost and Johnson.
Eh? I believe North Sea fish stocks have revived somewhat since we left the common fisheries?
Fishing could be part of a win-win.
If I have the numbers right, British fishermen are catching more fish, but ending up with less money in total for it.
The devil will be in the detail, as ever, and whether the Government (unlike the last one) is willing to make appropriate use of the powers it has in its possession.
Mr Starmer needs to resist being a little mouse.
But the biggest problem with the CFP wasn't which set of fishermen won or lost (though it wasn't ours who won), it was that it was unsustainable. It was taking more fish than the fish stocks could bear. We need far, far longer out of the CFP before we let that happen again.
Quite a shocking story from Peter Tatchell as to how he was treated by the inept Met Police, where he was arrested at the behest of the PSC for holding a sign criticising Israel and Hamas. They objected to the part condemning Hamas.
Also the met told him if he had said ‘Hamas are terrorists’ that’s a potential criminal offence.
WTF? That has to be a mistake as they quite literally are proscribed terrorists.
The Police did say they had arrested him ‘in error’
You would like to think it a mistake by the Met but they do have form when it comes to policing these marches.
If you read the story, it is a bit more nuanced. There were two demos being kept apart, and Tatchell was being ‘edgy’. The police seem to have been looking at it from a breach of the peace (or whatever it is called now) angle.
I did read the story. I’ve also read Tatchell’s feed. It is not really nuanced at all although it is not easy to read due to the constant ads disrupting the text.
Tatchell wasn’t being edgy, he was pointing out Hamas are killing dissidents. He wants to free Gaza from Israel AND Hamas.
The problem seems to be a significant chunk in the PSC are also pro Hamas.
Are there any direct quotes from PSC's organisers condemning Hamas for what they did on October 7th? Or, indeed, for anything Hamas have done?
‘ An offensive launched from Gaza can only be understood in the context of Israel’s ongoing military occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land, and imposition of a system of oppression that meets the legal definition of apartheid, which under international law constitutes a crime against humanity. ’
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. So we've failed to secure a deal giving us lots of benefits without the EU getting anything. Starmer is such a pushover. Couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag. Be grateful he didn't give away Gibraltar while he was at it. He didn't, did he?
"In return, the UK secured an agreement that the aspect of the deal reducing checks on food exports to the EU would stand alone rather than being tied to any future negotiations over fish."
So the EU will need to find a different thing to swap for fish in 12 years.
"In return, the UK secured an agreement that the aspect of the deal reducing checks on food exports to the EU would stand alone rather than being tied to any future negotiations over fish."
So the EU will need to find a different thing to swap for fish in 12 years.
To be honest that sounds like a lawyers argument. It doesn’t really matter what the contract/treaty says, in reality everything is always up for renegotiation.
Boris bikes and LTNs are for thee, not for me. Cars, the reverse.
Reminds me of Ken Livingstone - refused to have a car. Took black cabs everywhere, on expenses. Despite it being pointed out, multiple times that a car would be cheaper.
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
Instead of fisheries moaning they could instead accept that they’ll now be able to sell more to the EU and those that want to export live produce will see a lot of the red tape removed .
The governments also announcing an extra 360 million pounds in investment for fishing communities .
"In return, the UK secured an agreement that the aspect of the deal reducing checks on food exports to the EU would stand alone rather than being tied to any future negotiations over fish."
So the EU will need to find a different thing to swap for fish in 12 years.
To be honest that sounds like a lawyers argument. It doesn’t really matter what the contract/treaty says, in reality everything is always up for renegotiation.
Given how often we are renegotiating, 12 years is very long time....
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
"In return, the UK secured an agreement that the aspect of the deal reducing checks on food exports to the EU would stand alone rather than being tied to any future negotiations over fish."
So the EU will need to find a different thing to swap for fish in 12 years.
Of course. If the stronger party in a negotiation wants something of relatively low value to you, why wouldn't you trade it?
So Starmer sells out fishermen, just as everyone else does, none more so than Farage with his Fishing for Leave scam.
Boris bikes and LTNs are for thee, not for me. Cars, the reverse.
Reminds me of Ken Livingstone - refused to have a car. Took black cabs everywhere, on expenses. Despite it being pointed out, multiple times that a car would be cheaper.
Tbf, that sounds like me, except that this non-driver cannot claim expenses so has to pay his own cab fares.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
The Brits don’t eat enough fish . And an SPS deal means UK fisheries can sell more into the EU especially catch that needs to be exported live .
More correctly, we don't eat the right fish. Much of the crab and herring and mackeral and even a good proportion of the bass caught in British waters goes abroad, while we import haddock and cod and tuna.
Anyone paying attention over the last 18 months would have seen what happens when anyone dares criticise Hamas on these demos. An Iranian guy was arrested multiple times for doing just that. And Tatchell was previously stopped from going on a march because he had a placard that criticised Hamas.
Anyone paying attention over the last 18 months would have seen what happens when anyone dares criticise Hamas on these demos. An Iranian guy was arrested multiple times for doing just that. And Tatchell was previously stopped from going on a march because he had a placard that criticised Hamas.
I believe the Iranian guy was arrested again over the weekend. It would be interesting to know a bit more context about why he keeps getting his collar felt.
Nice reminder, except I don't believe "Private Polling Does Not Exist".
A pleasant morning here in the Midlands. I feel a conversation about Japanese Loos coming on.
You mean the heated seats and the warm water washes. How about the self service laundries too? (It wasn't attached to a 5* hotel at $9000 a night, though such clients could use it if they wanted.)
For all the sound and fury over the UK - EU reset the real question is will it make any difference to the government's and Starmer's poll ratings
No doubt the polls will be watched over the next couple of weeks for evidence to this effect
Expect a small uptick. Not a surge or anything like that, but important in terms of mood and direction.
The government and Starmer would be in an unassailable position if endless conferences and talking won votes but the public have to see, feel, and experience benefits in their own day to day lives
On the EU agreement, I'm also interested in some things I have not seen reported. For example:
Where are we on equal recognition of the City? What about Pet Passports? (We get 487 dogs for scale, not just one.) What about full access to Galileo? And European Arrest Warrants?
Last time round I was in the "Norway-plus / EFTA" type of camp.
That the UK is "asking" to rejoin the pet passport scheme has been widely trailed in the media, from a 'government source', over recent weeks. While some are getting their hopes up, it's equally possible this is an alibi planted to prepare for the absence of any movement in the deal....
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
Time was we could use Scotland as a test bed for such ideas: if it worked (e.g. smoking ban) roll it out across the UK, if it didn't work (Poll Tax) then obviously don't roll it out...
For all the sound and fury over the UK - EU reset the real question is will it make any difference to the government's and Starmer's poll ratings
No doubt the polls will be watched over the next couple of weeks for evidence to this effect
Expect a small uptick. Not a surge or anything like that, but important in terms of mood and direction.
Though the next few weeks isn't the relevant timeframe. If this deal loosens up trade a bit, makes us a bit better off over a couple of years, that's more important than the short-term sound and fury.
After all, having Got Brexit Done didn't really help the Conservatives in the 2024 election.
Was this the final straw that brought Gary Lineker's BBC career to an end?
Gary Lineker's vicious dig at his BBC boss while apologising for antisemitism was the 'final straw' for the corporation with the star expected to resign in shame today.
The 64-year-old said that Alex Kay-Jelski had 'no television experience' and suggested his plans to revamp Match of the Day without him would fail.
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
If AI takes over a significant number of jobs, which could happen, what options are there other than UBI? Maybe a shorter working week, job sharing and an AI tax?
UBI is the best idea anyone's come up with so far for turning ordinary people into total zombies imo.
It is the logical end of the disastrous socialist ratchet we've been implementing for the last century, which goes:
Limited benefits >> universal benefits >> cradle-to-grave welfare state >> minimum wage >> UBI >> total equalisation of incomes
It is yet another lefty idea to hook everybody on the state by dishing out trillions of other people's money.
And it would be a further nail in the already half-sealed coffins of productivity, enterprise and aspiration.
Dependency, idleness and entitlement, otoh, are flourishing and would thrive unchecked.
How is UBI the equalisation of incomes? Its the opposite - in paying everyone a basic income you free people. Enterprise is very hard to do these days - the costs of starting a business are prohibitive. UBI gives you the platform to actually try - you don't have to stick in the low productivity job you hate, you can be entrepreneurial and take risks.
That's the theory, but it doesn't survive contact with the enemy.
Entrepreneurial people are highly driven and motivated. They will be happy to spin out a new business in their free time, and take risks.
What they need is lower costs of entry, easier access to finance, less bureaucracy and regulation and access to talent. Not UBI.
I fear this is wishful thinking. You can't tell me how "Entrepreneurial people" fee. I own several small businesses and speak to other small business owners. We are the exceptions to the rule. Many other people either try and quickly fail, or realise they can't take the risk because of their existing family financial commitments.
Pay everyone UBI and we remove those barriers. You can take the risk of starting a business knowing that you and your family won't starve whilst it gets going. We have a productivity issue because too many people are financially trapped in jobs they don't want to do. UBI stops that, gives people the space to do what they are better suited to do, which drives productivity.
Somewhat naive about how people on low incomes exist. A lot max out their spending using freely available credit and then spend the time repaying it, in a cycle of debt and splurges. The irony here is this is exactly what governments do too ... but we continue to elect them.
UBI will mean a distinct and guaranteed income which can be garnished by debt companies offering easy application and high interest. Wage/benefit garnishment are some of the most common forms of debt collection.
Anyone paying attention over the last 18 months would have seen what happens when anyone dares criticise Hamas on these demos. An Iranian guy was arrested multiple times for doing just that. And Tatchell was previously stopped from going on a march because he had a placard that criticised Hamas.
It's not surprising also because Tatchell's raison d'etre is generally to get himself arrested in order to make a point.
The Liberal Democrats have welcomed news of the deal with the EU as a “positive step”. In a statement, Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said:
"These seem to be some positive first steps in rebuilding our relationship with Europe after years of a Conservative party that wrecked trust and broke our relationship with our closest allies.
The prime minister must ignore the naysayers and dinosaurs in Reform and the Conservative party and be more ambitious in getting the best deal in the national interest."
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
Also Marx: "Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains UBI".
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
I think Leon has part of a point about Bluesky. The actually good thing about Bluesky is you choose who you see on your timeline, unlike Instagram and X who push all sorts of muck via algorithm. If you want an echo chamber, you can set that up; if you want a collection of thoughtful and well informed commentators, you can get that too - you no longer can on X.
The problem is the replies to those posts, which tend to be ultra-dogmatic left, tedious and grim. There's no good way to control people piling on - some people just restrict replies to those they follow, which is very limiting.
Bluesky needs to sort this out in my view. I'm done with Twitter/X but still undecided about Bluesky.
Dan won fairly decisively in the Romanian presidential contest against the MAGA/Putinist Simion.
Montenegro is the confusingly named PM of Portugal. He leads the confusingly named Social Democratic Party, who are centre-right (they're in the Christian Democrat group in the EU Parliament). He called a snap election after losing a confidence vote and the SDP has gained seats in the election, with the big losers being the Socialist Party. Some gains by the far right. MAGA-esque Chega.
The centre-right Tusk-supporting Polish presidential candidate Trzaskowski came top in their first round of elections, with his opponent, the populist right Law-and-Justice-supported Nawrocki outdoing the polls and coming a close second. Polling puts Trzaskowski ahead for the second round. Nawrocki has been hit by various scandals.
That's three elections with the centre-right/centre doing well against the radical right. Romania is centrist beat radical right. Portugal is centre-right beat centre-left, with small radical right on the up. Poland is centre-right beating radical right.
Was this the final straw that brought Gary Lineker's BBC career to an end?
Gary Lineker's vicious dig at his BBC boss while apologising for antisemitism was the 'final straw' for the corporation with the star expected to resign in shame today.
The 64-year-old said that Alex Kay-Jelski had 'no television experience' and suggested his plans to revamp Match of the Day without him would fail.
Is it possible that the Youth Mobility Scheme will include EU students paying UK rates for tuition fees, as opposed to the international rates they currently pay?
And if so, would EU students in Scotland get free tuition, unlike rUK students who have to pay?
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
"And a win for the Home Office, which managed to secure access to finger print, criminal and DNA records of non-EU citizens from EU databases to help fight illegal migration. This was being rejected by Brussels as an outcome of Brexit reset only a few weeks ago."
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
I think Leon has part of a point about Bluesky. The actually good thing about Bluesky is you choose who you see on your timeline, unlike Instagram and X who push all sorts of muck via algorithm. If you want an echo chamber, you can set that up; if you want a collection of thoughtful and well informed commentators, you can get that too - you no longer can on X.
The problem is the replies to those posts, which tend to be ultra-dogmatic left, tedious and grim. There's no good way to control people piling on - some people just restrict replies to those they follow, which is very limiting.
Bluesky needs to sort this out in my view. I'm done with Twitter/X but still undecided about Bluesky.
Having even part of a point is progress, I guess.
However there's no guarantee it will stay like this. All the major social media sites started out providing content that the user essentially chose - yet as time passed and their userbase (and the data held about it) grew, they pump out a good dose of monetised advertising crap, mixed in with what we want to see, as you say. If BS achieves critical mass and staying power, I don't expect it will be able to avoid doing the same.
Fascinating article on how Bluesky is tailing off, and slowly self-destructing
TLDR: it's become a bubble chamber of leftoids, who are angry and intolerant of opposing opinions (esp but not always rightwing opinions). This makes it hostile to a lot of newcomers, and so the newbies stop coming. Without opposing opinions to tackle, the Blueskyers either turn on each other, or tediously and pointlessly agree with each other. And they become increasingly misinformed
I reckon if you put a dozen alpha males together for a month, by the end of it one will be the boss, there will be a few caporegimes, and the rest will be running errands, and the same with a dozen more sensitive chaps. This could be what is happening at BlueSky. We are just primates after all
Definitely some of that. And also partly an unhappy evolution - for the Left - that increasingly they don't just dislike rightwing or opposing opinions, they will not tolerate them. To oppose Woke left values - which are of course self evidently true - is to be evil, wrong, malign, Nazi. This shall not do. So anyone that has such opinions gets chased off Bluesky, and the purity police will come for even minor infringements in really niche areas - they use Blocking lists, and basic and very violent abuse
What a shitshow
But as I say this is really bad for the Left. eg the Guardian has quit X with all its 600m users and now only preaches on Bluesky to 33m angry lefties and the odd lepidopterist. And if the Guardian strays an inch from the accepted orthodoxy of the day on, say, Israel or gender or ANYTHING, all it gets is screeds of hatred
How does this benefit the Guardian? It doesn't. Much better for them to be on X with vastly more readers and maybe the chance to persuade the middle ground
Then you get the weird phenomenon of wilful ignorance. Lefties who simply aren't aware of very basic facts because these facts are censored if at all awkward, on places like Bluesky
This is not my experience of BlueSky, and I am not a woke lefty. It's certainly a far more pleasant (and more useable) place than X.
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
I think Leon has part of a point about Bluesky. The actually good thing about Bluesky is you choose who you see on your timeline, unlike Instagram and X who push all sorts of muck via algorithm. If you want an echo chamber, you can set that up; if you want a collection of thoughtful and well informed commentators, you can get that too - you no longer can on X.
The problem is the replies to those posts, which tend to be ultra-dogmatic left, tedious and grim. There's no good way to control people piling on - some people just restrict replies to those they follow, which is very limiting.
Bluesky needs to sort this out in my view. I'm done with Twitter/X but still undecided about Bluesky.
Yeah, I'm not suggesting it's perfect and there's also the issue that a lot of large organisations - corporate, government, media and other - maintain active profiles on X but not BSky, so there's a more limited pool of information. But it's the least-bad environment at the moment.
So I was half joking yesterday that all the UK would get is free upgraded speedy boarding....
Very funny . Re-joining Erasmus and a youth mobility scheme will please Remainers who Labour have been ignoring .
The replacement Turing scheme was now funding just as many as the number who used to go under Erasmus and you can go worldwide on that scheme and as it more generous in some aspects.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
The Turing scheme was a downgraded version in relation to the EU and the Tories stuck his name on it to try and dupe the public . It’s not more generous .
Since 2016 I have hosted 20+ overseas students and our department this coming year will send out 10+ students worldwide. Some people, with little experience, believe Erasmus is the be all and end all of student exchanges. It isn't. At the time we were negotiating the EU tried to screw us over financially for being part of Erasmus and the government, rightly in my view, said piss off. What we are seeing now is what should have happened after 2016 - partners making deals and agreements. Sadly back then all sides were too strident in their actions.
"And a win for the Home Office, which managed to secure access to finger print, criminal and DNA records of non-EU citizens from EU databases to help fight illegal migration. This was being rejected by Brussels as an outcome of Brexit reset only a few weeks ago."
I wait to hear the details of the reset but to be honest I think most of it seems sensible and certainly it must be in everyone's interest for the UK and EU to join together in defence and security
However, fishing will be the subject to cause the most controversy with Farage already announcing the end of UK fishing
Ultimately I do not think it will move the polls either way much
A key trouble with UBI is there isn't a single universal level of income that is appropriate.
The needs of a single 18 year-old living with their parents after school are not the same as the needs of a 30 year-old widow with two young children and with no assets or family.
Pretending we can have a one size fits all approach to welfare is well meaning but delusional.
I think the point is that having a universal sum of money you get regardless of what you do gives everyone options. The 30 year old widow with young children could use her UBI to pay for childcare so she can go back to her previous career. The 18 year old living at home can use her UBI to meet her living costs while she takes an internship or an apprenticeship.
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
That is absolutely crazy you having to miss that opportunity.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
I object fundementally to the basic priciple of a UBI. The idea that the taxpayer is giving handouts to everyone regardless of need (I am of course in favour of taxpayer support for the needy with a relatively wide definition) seems utterly ludicrous. It creates a vast client state and completely alters the relationship between the citizen and the State.
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I don't think it's practical. The numbers don't work. We can't spend in aggregate more on welfare, so bringing in something which directs money to people who don't need it means less for those who do.
Doesn’t a negative income tax negate that?
I'm not sure you could negate it without losing the main benefit of UBI - its simplicity.
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
"Biden's cancer diagnosis leaves America's top doctors stunned
Medical experts have declared it 'inconceivable' that former President Joe Biden's 'aggressive' form of prostate cancer was not caught earlier by doctors."
Has anyone got a summary of what the changes are for the EU deal? It seems to be a bunch of nothing so far other than extending EU fishing rights for 12 years.
Comments
The worst thing about the current benefits system is the pettifogging rules which restrict people making life choices that work for them because of the fear of losing money. When I was younger and out of work, I was offered a voluntary role with Oxfam coordinating their online book sales for my local area. I would have loved to do it and it would have been great experience but the Job Centre said I would lose my job seeker's allowance. UBI would have allowed me to boost my employability whilst still having enough to live.
European Defense Companies Profit Massively From Ukraine War -In this video we analyze the German defense contractor Rheinmetall and how it has seen its business boom since the outbreak of the Ukraine war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUIwCCalG6c
I don't suppose you were as critical at the time of Johnson and Frost's "oven ready for the microwave" catastrophe.
One efficient implementation, without traps or disincentives, is "tax ALL income; don't means test". Choose the levels according to social and political taste.
The ability for UK universities to study abroad hasn't gone away.
Google suggests it's unusual but far from unknown, for prostate cancer to be metastatic on first diagnosis, but I am not an expert.
Which is nice...
Reminder to self: do the routine age based tests that are offered on national programmes.
The mistake is not to recognise that political leadership is quite a different proposition, and doesn't actually require a lot of thinking. The job is mostly sales, with a good helping of team management, and a little organisation - if you can't find people to do that for you. Intelligent politicians often hanker for the top job - because in our centralised politics, that's where most of the power is - but find the day to day grunt work of keeping the team together and spending your days going round saying the same thing to lots of different people, or listening to the same things from different people, boring and ultimately unfulfilling.
People like that do very well in 'number two' roles where they have a leader willing to trust and listen to them. Think Mandleson (or indeed Brown) in Labour or Gove (Letwin, Stewart...) for the Tories.
Putting such people in the top job is almost always a mistake.
On the other hand, people who are able to communicate and inspire need to have intelligent, thinking people around them, and be willing to rely on their judgement. Reagan was good at that, Trump is not.
The only thing I've seen that seems a concrete trade is this:
..According to EU sources, access to British fishing waters will be granted until the end of June 2038, an extension of 12 years. In return, the agreement on easier checks for food, animal and other agricultural products, known as sanitary and phytosanitary goods (SPS), is indefinite.
While the length of the fishing rights deal is likely to prompt criticism from the Conservatives and Reform UK, it is understood that Downing Street pushed back against EU demands for a time-limited SPS deal and a permanent arrangement on fishing..
Would it not be more helpful for “your side” if you came up with deals and ideas that didn’t upset the other side and show that closer alignment wasn’t divisive?
Or just more fun to own the Brexiters/libs/whatevers?
If I have the numbers right, British fishermen are catching more fish, but ending up with less money in total for it.
The devil will be in the detail, as ever, and whether the Government (unlike the last one) is willing to make appropriate use of the powers it has in its possession.
Mr Starmer needs to resist being a little mouse.
A sensible thing for the UK government to do would be merge both, you can do take advantage of Erasmus, but you can also still go to non-EU as well.
Have they changed the offer?
*The classic of that genre was the EU vaccine scheme for COVID. The UK was offered - "Put your money into the scheme. You will have no say in what vaccines are procured. You will have no say in how the vaccines are distributed."
Where are we on equal recognition of the City?
What about Pet Passports? (We get 487 dogs for scale, not just one.)
What about full access to Galileo?
And European Arrest Warrants?
Last time round I was in the "Norway-plus / EFTA" type of camp.
But the Treasury, through their spokesperson Rachel Reeves, may have something to say on that.
Bart keeps mentionjng cliff edges and he’s right, it’s something ripe for reform and never gets reformed.
A UBi would be fine for me, but it’s how is it funded and at what level is it set,
https://palestinecampaign.org/psc-statement-on-escalation-of-violence/
The next stage is learning how to butcher a whole fish. We want to buy them fresh off the North Shields fish quay
Brexiteers couldn't agree on what a "good Brexit" looked like in Government.
There is no way they can do it in opposition
Whatever happened to the old principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
I also love Dover Sole , seafood especially mussels .
Local authorities praised by cycling and environmental charities are spending huge sums of taxpayers’ cash on chauffeurs and minicabs
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-councils-criticised-taxi-expenses-b1228295.html
Boris bikes and LTNs are for thee, not for me. Cars, the reverse.
So the EU will need to find a different thing to swap for fish in 12 years.
The governments also announcing an extra 360 million pounds in investment for fishing communities .
No doubt the polls will be watched over the next couple of weeks for evidence to this effect
Yes, right-wing shouty types will get push-back and many will block them but the key aspect there is 'shouty', not 'right-wing'. Bubble chambers are never great but they're better than not being able to exclude those who insist on barging in and disrupting unreasonably.
It may well be that X still has 600m registered users but I wonder what the trend is in how many still interact regularly. No doubt it still appeals to a particular political demographic but even to the extent it does, it just doesn't work very well any more, without a proper block facility and with intrusive adverts.
So Starmer sells out fishermen, just as everyone else does, none more so than Farage with his Fishing for Leave scam.
Farage will lie as he does and cremate the betrayal narrative .
Trump also cleared the cognitive portion of the assessment, with a score of "30 out of 30,"
So, yes it looks like you're correct.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-height-weight-debate-reignites-2059808
Anyone paying attention over the last 18 months would have seen what happens when anyone dares criticise Hamas on these demos. An Iranian guy was arrested multiple times for doing just that. And Tatchell was previously stopped from going on a march because he had a placard that criticised Hamas.
So we didn't get anything on eGates at all. We were going to get them anyway as other friendly countries will when the new system comes in.
Oh...
After all, having Got Brexit Done didn't really help the Conservatives in the 2024 election.
Gary Lineker's vicious dig at his BBC boss while apologising for antisemitism was the 'final straw' for the corporation with the star expected to resign in shame today.
The 64-year-old said that Alex Kay-Jelski had 'no television experience' and suggested his plans to revamp Match of the Day without him would fail.
A BBC source has claimed that the criticism of Mr Kay-Jelski may have been the 'final straw' for the corporation who had 'indulged him [Lineker] bending its rules to breaking point'.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14726437/Was-final-straw-brought-Gary-Linekers-BBC-career-end-Match-Day-hosts-dig-boss-Alex-Kay-Jelski-revealed-interview-published-antisemitic-rat-post-scandal.html
Maybe a shorter working week, job sharing and an AI tax?
UBI will mean a distinct and guaranteed income which can be garnished by debt companies offering easy application and high interest. Wage/benefit garnishment are some of the most common forms of debt collection.
"These seem to be some positive first steps in rebuilding our relationship with Europe after years of a Conservative party that wrecked trust and broke our relationship with our closest allies.
The prime minister must ignore the naysayers and dinosaurs in Reform and the Conservative party and be more ambitious in getting the best deal in the national interest."
Another loss for Trump!
"Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your
chainsUBI".The problem is the replies to those posts, which tend to be ultra-dogmatic left, tedious and grim. There's no good way to control people piling on - some people just restrict replies to those they follow, which is very limiting.
Bluesky needs to sort this out in my view. I'm done with Twitter/X but still undecided about Bluesky.
Dan won fairly decisively in the Romanian presidential contest against the MAGA/Putinist Simion.
Montenegro is the confusingly named PM of Portugal. He leads the confusingly named Social Democratic Party, who are centre-right (they're in the Christian Democrat group in the EU Parliament). He called a snap election after losing a confidence vote and the SDP has gained seats in the election, with the big losers being the Socialist Party. Some gains by the far right. MAGA-esque Chega.
The centre-right Tusk-supporting Polish presidential candidate Trzaskowski came top in their first round of elections, with his opponent, the populist right Law-and-Justice-supported Nawrocki outdoing the polls and coming a close second. Polling puts Trzaskowski ahead for the second round. Nawrocki has been hit by various scandals.
That's three elections with the centre-right/centre doing well against the radical right. Romania is centrist beat radical right. Portugal is centre-right beat centre-left, with small radical right on the up. Poland is centre-right beating radical right.
And if so, would EU students in Scotland get free tuition, unlike rUK students who have to pay?
The real question is whether what has been agreed is beneficial to the UK.
This sounds positive, at least.
However there's no guarantee it will stay like this. All the major social media sites started out providing content that the user essentially chose - yet as time passed and their userbase (and the data held about it) grew, they pump out a good dose of monetised advertising crap, mixed in with what we want to see, as you say. If BS achieves critical mass and staying power, I don't expect it will be able to avoid doing the same.
What we are seeing now is what should have happened after 2016 - partners making deals and agreements. Sadly back then all sides were too strident in their actions.
However, fishing will be the subject to cause the most controversy with Farage already announcing the end of UK fishing
Ultimately I do not think it will move the polls either way much
inchfoot in it.British voters electing people to take British decisions
This just happened
They are all wildly happy now, right?