I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
You cannot march on Moscow with the aim of overthrowing the regime and forcing an unconditional surrender, but you can defend the territorial integrity of an independent country.
No-one is going to use nuclear weapons to defend territorial gains from a war of choice. There's always an alternative action that comes with a better chance of survival.
Which we did. If Putin was forced out of Ukraine completely then he would likely have used a tactical nuclear weapon rather than face outright defeat which also meant his losing power in the Kremlin and the end of his Presidency
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
No dice, I'm afraid. A mowing regime to create hard ground conditions for a kite flying festival with 5000 people there, parking on an area as large as the festival, vehicles supporting stands, and all the rest, is a difficult one to argue as the natural state of chalk grassland .
That's over-reaching a little !
The applicant themselves accepted that their activity impacted conditions.
Which had happened for at least 30 years before over 2% of the heath. Heath, it should be remembered, that people are free to traipse over. This is not a private area of land.
I find it odd that someone who speaks so eloquently about access for disabled people is so uncaring about overreach by an NGO restricting access for no good reason, where the access has happened in the past.
I have no understanding of the details of this, and as you know I'm up for an access battle (North Chesthill estate etc etc). But the invective that Natural England have received on PB deserves an opposite and equal reaction. At least Matt always comes across as considered on his access campaign.
Whenever Luckyguy1983 or BartholomewRoberts kick off about something like this I can't help but feel grateful for the agencies, charities and laws that protect out country from such vandals. These things have value, even if you can't see it on a spreadsheet.
Actually, I think I was the one who kicked off about it (And I believe I mentioned it on here when it originally happened a couple of year ago). I know the heath well, having walked, run and cycled along/around/through it, and have been to the kite festival - which was a great day out for kids and adults.
In this case, it is not an agency who needs protecting from 'vandals'. It is ordinary people who need protecting from a large organisation's overreach.
And yes, I'm glad we agree the festival has a value that can't just be seen on a spreadsheet...
It's a balance as always. I think access has gone too far in some places in Scotland; not far enough in others. I'm always going to react badly to people who are just so obnoxiously single-minded and unthinking about an issue though, as those two PBers tend to be.
So you admit to knowing shit all about this issue, but you're going to side with one poster in your complete ignorance because you prefer the cut of their gib.
Well done for revealing the shallowness of your thought process, and thanks for your utter non-contribution to the debate.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
Afghanistan and Vietnam managed it. There is no reason why Ukraine cannot do so.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Natural England have the power here, and are abusing it at the expense of the locals.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
I'm not honestly sure that they are; they are not the decision maker with the power. Here we have a proper separation of roles.
We'll have to disagree on that.
They made a legal objection. They are a very large organisation (comparatively...) with lots of lawyers who do this sort of thing for a living. Their opponents are a small local charity. They are also a well-known organisation with a good reputation, whose views will carry a great deal of weight.
Such oerganisations can easily become bullies and abuse their powers.
Trump trashing the UN, says all he has got from the UN is a bad escalator which the First Lady nearly fell off and a bad teleprompter. Says it is not even living up to its potential, just writes badly worded letters with no action to end wars unlike his success with the Abraham Accords etc
I think it was built by a US Company !
If he doesn't watch it, the UN could move their headquarters. The current one is ~75 years old, so it ay be time for an update.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
"We" didn't. The brave Ukrainian people did. At best, we provided some good training to a small proportion of their soldiers, and a tiny, but useful, amount of weapons.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
Wow, US Secret Service have taken down a warehouse near the UN with a server farm containing 100,000 SIM cards, seemingly intended to overwhelm the mobile networks in New York.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Natural England have the power here, and are abusing it at the expense of the locals.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
I'm not honestly sure that they are; they are not the decision maker with the power. Here we have a proper separation of roles.
We'll have to disagree on that.
They made a legal objection. They are a very large organisation (comparatively...) with lots of lawyers who do this sort of thing for a living. Their opponents are a small local charity. They are also a well-known organisation with a good reputation, whose views will carry a great deal of weight.
Such oerganisations can easily become bullies and abuse their powers.
I’m sure the actions of NE have caused hurt and offence. That plus their modifying an SSSI without a plan or justification should get them on the same list as Palestinian Action.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
"We" didn't. The brave Ukrainian people did. At best, we provided some good training to a small proportion of their soldiers, and a tiny, but useful, amount of weapons.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
The final touch to the collapse of the initial invasion was then slaughter of that stopped armoured column.
Where apparently the Mother-In-LAWs disproved our correspondents statements of their usefulness. Automatic top attack vs mostly light armour.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
"We" didn't. The brave Ukrainian people did. At best, we provided some good training to a small proportion of their soldiers, and a tiny, but useful, amount of weapons.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
Without western weapons, especially the ones Boris provided well in advance like anti tank missiles, the likelihood is Putin would have taken Kyiv
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
Afghanistan and Vietnam managed it. There is no reason why Ukraine cannot do so.
They were fighting for themselves after their nations were invaded as the Ukranians are.
That is a completely different scenario from 2 nuclear missile powered nations going to war. It was also the US President's own decision to withdraw in both those nations, Putin would never withdraw as that means his Presidency is over. Gorbachev might have withdrawn from Afghanistan but he was a western leaning moderate Russian leader, Putin is a near dictator nationalist
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Natural England have the power here, and are abusing it at the expense of the locals.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
I'm not honestly sure that they are; they are not the decision maker with the power. Here we have a proper separation of roles.
We'll have to disagree on that.
They made a legal objection. They are a very large organisation (comparatively...) with lots of lawyers who do this sort of thing for a living. Their opponents are a small local charity. They are also a well-known organisation with a good reputation, whose views will carry a great deal of weight.
Such oerganisations can easily become bullies and abuse their powers.
Yes - I'd agree with that in principle. Though I think the statutory responsibility does justify extra weight. For an organisation pushing it too far, I'd perhaps cite the NT objecting to wind turbines within several miles of their properties - there was one near here where you could just about see the top of the blades from the roof (not open to the public !), which I thought OTT.
In this case I think the suggested mitigations are reasonable, as in the Inspector's Report - and that the Rotary are being unwise in standing so firm.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Natural England have the power here, and are abusing it at the expense of the locals.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
I'm not honestly sure that they are; they are not the decision maker with the power. Here we have a proper separation of roles.
We'll have to disagree on that.
They made a legal objection. They are a very large organisation (comparatively...) with lots of lawyers who do this sort of thing for a living. Their opponents are a small local charity. They are also a well-known organisation with a good reputation, whose views will carry a great deal of weight.
Such oerganisations can easily become bullies and abuse their powers.
Yes - I'd agree with that in principle. Though I think the statutory responsibility does justify extra weight. For an organisation pushing it too far, I'd perhaps cite the NT objecting to wind turbines within several miles of their properties - there was one near here where you could just about see the top of the blades from the roof (not open to the public !), which I thought OTT.
In this case I think the suggested mitigations are reasonable, as in the Inspector's Report - and that the Rotary are being unwise in standing so firm.
You mean a mitigation like running the event in a bowl in the hillside where there is not enough wind to fly kites?
That sort of 'mitigation' ?
It's quite simple: NE have killed off a lovely little festival. It's death will do f-all to protect nature. You support that. I don't.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
"We" didn't. The brave Ukrainian people did. At best, we provided some good training to a small proportion of their soldiers, and a tiny, but useful, amount of weapons.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
Without western weapons, especially the ones Boris provided well in advance like anti tank missiles, the likelihood is Putin would have taken Kyiv
That's quite a comment. IMV the major event that prevented the taking of Kyiv was the Ukrainian defence of Hostomel airport; although the Russians did eventually take it for a period, it was never usable for the heavy transports that Russia wanted to use to bring more troops in. The defence - and retaking - of Hostomel was mainly done by a load of brave young Ukrainian men with nothing much fancier than guns.
After that, the Russians tried to relieve their troops and take Kyiv with a thunder-run from the north. There our weapons did help; but again, there were much larger factors: Russia was terrible unprepared for that sort of attack, their plan was terrible, and the staunch Ukrainian defence of the route.
By suggesting 'we' stopped Putin, you are besmirching those brave Ukrainians.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
"We" didn't. The brave Ukrainian people did. At best, we provided some good training to a small proportion of their soldiers, and a tiny, but useful, amount of weapons.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
Without western weapons, especially the ones Boris provided well in advance like anti tank missiles, the likelihood is Putin would have taken Kyiv
That's quite a comment. IMV the major event that prevented the taking of Kyiv was the Ukrainian defence of Hostomel airport; although the Russians did eventually take it for a period, it was never usable for the heavy transports that Russia wanted to use to bring more troops in. The defence - and retaking - of Hostomel was mainly done by a load of brave young Ukrainian men with nothing much fancier than guns.
After that, the Russians tried to relieve their troops and take Kyiv with a thunder-run from the north. There our weapons did help; but again, there were much larger factors: Russia was terrible unprepared for that sort of attack, their plan was terrible, and the staunch Ukrainian defence of the route.
By suggesting 'we' stopped Putin, you are besmirching those brave Ukrainians.
Well if the Ukranians did it all by themselves, they don't need any further money and weapons from us then do they!
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Experience over centuries is that Commons get taken or developed away by powerful locals, and need protecting for the future in say 100 or 300 years.
I'm currently complaining about somebody who has taken a chunk of our local Country Park and is turning into an extension to double the size of his garden. He currently has autumn fairy lights over the part he has put a fence around.
That's the basic principle, and we can't walk away from it just because it is inconvenient on a particular occasion.
Natural England have the power here, and are abusing it at the expense of the locals.
And you should care, as it is far easier to say no! than yes! Which one day will include an access scheme you care about
I'm not honestly sure that they are; they are not the decision maker with the power. Here we have a proper separation of roles.
We'll have to disagree on that.
They made a legal objection. They are a very large organisation (comparatively...) with lots of lawyers who do this sort of thing for a living. Their opponents are a small local charity. They are also a well-known organisation with a good reputation, whose views will carry a great deal of weight.
Such oerganisations can easily become bullies and abuse their powers.
Yes - I'd agree with that in principle. Though I think the statutory responsibility does justify extra weight. For an organisation pushing it too far, I'd perhaps cite the NT objecting to wind turbines within several miles of their properties - there was one near here where you could just about see the top of the blades from the roof (not open to the public !), which I thought OTT.
In this case I think the suggested mitigations are reasonable, as in the Inspector's Report - and that the Rotary are being unwise in standing so firm.
You mean a mitigation like running the event in a bowl in the hillside where there is not enough wind to fly kites?
That sort of 'mitigation' ?
It's quite simple: NE have killed off a lovely little festival. It's death will do f-all to protect nature. You support that. I don't.
A few years ago I ran the Miners Half in Radstock. The year after the race was cancelled and has never been run again. The reason? The council decided that to be safe a road crossing had to manned by two council staff at a cost of several thousand pounds. This for a race that ran on pavements and paths for most of its route and had a few road crossings. Now there is a balance to be struck re safety etc it cannot have cost the council thousands to employ two people for max 2-3 hours.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
"We" didn't. The brave Ukrainian people did. At best, we provided some good training to a small proportion of their soldiers, and a tiny, but useful, amount of weapons.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
Without western weapons, especially the ones Boris provided well in advance like anti tank missiles, the likelihood is Putin would have taken Kyiv
That's quite a comment. IMV the major event that prevented the taking of Kyiv was the Ukrainian defence of Hostomel airport; although the Russians did eventually take it for a period, it was never usable for the heavy transports that Russia wanted to use to bring more troops in. The defence - and retaking - of Hostomel was mainly done by a load of brave young Ukrainian men with nothing much fancier than guns.
After that, the Russians tried to relieve their troops and take Kyiv with a thunder-run from the north. There our weapons did help; but again, there were much larger factors: Russia was terrible unprepared for that sort of attack, their plan was terrible, and the staunch Ukrainian defence of the route.
By suggesting 'we' stopped Putin, you are besmirching those brave Ukrainians.
Well if the Ukranians did it all by themselves, they don't need any further money and weapons from us then do they!
Again, wow.
I have never said our weapons did not help; I am just pointing out that to say 'we' stopped Putin is inaccurate and really crass.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Oh God, you're on the nuke doomsdeay shite again.
You do realise that thinking will allow despots with nukes to grab whatever they want?
No, we stopped Putin capturing Kyiv didn't we, that didn't mean we were going to try and march on Moscow though
"We" didn't. The brave Ukrainian people did. At best, we provided some good training to a small proportion of their soldiers, and a tiny, but useful, amount of weapons.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
Without western weapons, especially the ones Boris provided well in advance like anti tank missiles, the likelihood is Putin would have taken Kyiv
That's quite a comment. IMV the major event that prevented the taking of Kyiv was the Ukrainian defence of Hostomel airport; although the Russians did eventually take it for a period, it was never usable for the heavy transports that Russia wanted to use to bring more troops in. The defence - and retaking - of Hostomel was mainly done by a load of brave young Ukrainian men with nothing much fancier than guns.
After that, the Russians tried to relieve their troops and take Kyiv with a thunder-run from the north. There our weapons did help; but again, there were much larger factors: Russia was terrible unprepared for that sort of attack, their plan was terrible, and the staunch Ukrainian defence of the route.
By suggesting 'we' stopped Putin, you are besmirching those brave Ukrainians.
Well if the Ukranians did it all by themselves, they don't need any further money and weapons from us then do they!
Again, wow.
I have never said our weapons did not help; I am just pointing out that to say 'we' stopped Putin is inaccurate and really crass.
The whole sorry saga, particularly on the US side, has been a case of denying Ukrainians agency for their own heroism.
Alliances win wars. The Americans got their independence with help from France. The Soviet Union fought off Hitler with help from Britain and the USA. North Korea held off the Americans with very significant Chinese support. But it’s the Ukrainians who defended Europe with their blood. We should be thanking them.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The Dems lost mainly because inflation was high, which wasn't Biden's fault, but incumbents tend to lose when inflation is high.
Perhaps if Biden had sorted Ukraine enough to win, rather than enough to avoid losing, then the issue of inflation might have been resolved by the end of the war and the end of sanctions.
Or we might now be in ashes after Putin started a nuclear war to avoid outright defeat, by comparison a bit of inflation is not too bad
Giving in to nuclear blackmail over a war of Imperialist aggression sets a very dangerous precedent.
It is reality, you cannot go to full war with a nation with nuclear weapons now, at best you can stop them invading any further if they launch an invasion
Afghanistan and Vietnam managed it. There is no reason why Ukraine cannot do so.
They were fighting for themselves after their nations were invaded as the Ukranians are.
That is a completely different scenario from 2 nuclear missile powered nations going to war. It was also the US President's own decision to withdraw in both those nations, Putin would never withdraw as that means his Presidency is over. Gorbachev might have withdrawn from Afghanistan but he was a western leaning moderate Russian leader, Putin is a near dictator nationalist
Putin is also not stupid. He would not have fired pointless tactical nukes and risked the annihilation of his country.
Comments
Well done for revealing the shallowness of your thought process, and thanks for your utter non-contribution to the debate.
Such oerganisations can easily become bullies and abuse their powers.
If he doesn't watch it, the UN could move their headquarters. The current one is ~75 years old, so it ay be time for an update.
But it is the Ukrainian people who stopped Putin grabbing Kyiv.
Where apparently the Mother-In-LAWs disproved our correspondents statements of their usefulness. Automatic top attack vs mostly light armour.
That is a completely different scenario from 2 nuclear missile powered nations going to war. It was also the US President's own decision to withdraw in both those nations, Putin would never withdraw as that means his Presidency is over. Gorbachev might have withdrawn from Afghanistan but he was a western leaning moderate Russian leader, Putin is a near dictator nationalist
In this case I think the suggested mitigations are reasonable, as in the Inspector's Report - and that the Rotary are being unwise in standing so firm.
That sort of 'mitigation' ?
It's quite simple: NE have killed off a lovely little festival. It's death will do f-all to protect nature. You support that. I don't.
After that, the Russians tried to relieve their troops and take Kyiv with a thunder-run from the north. There our weapons did help; but again, there were much larger factors: Russia was terrible unprepared for that sort of attack, their plan was terrible, and the staunch Ukrainian defence of the route.
By suggesting 'we' stopped Putin, you are besmirching those brave Ukrainians.
And it killed the race.
I have never said our weapons did not help; I am just pointing out that to say 'we' stopped Putin is inaccurate and really crass.
Alliances win wars. The Americans got their independence with help from France. The Soviet Union fought off Hitler with help from Britain and the USA. North Korea held off the Americans with very significant Chinese support. But it’s the Ukrainians who defended Europe with their blood. We should be thanking them.