I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
If you are referring to the discussion yesterday that was about @Benpointer’s selective use of statistics. You can’t prove a counter factual. Personally I suspect that the economic effect was minimal - the main result was that the government was tied up doing Brexit stuff.
Some may see the fact that government didn’t implement any clever initiatives as being a positive…
The best arguments for leaving the EU were (and are) non-economic. It should enhance democratic accountability by meaning the people we elect are the ones making the decisions.
Of course, this cuts both ways...
Its like finding out that your local council leader is actually much worse at making a decision on big infrastructure projects than the civil servants in London.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
The most British foreign country I have spent a lot of time in is Barbados. Unsurprising when you consider how long the British ruled it.
Off topic, but I've just finished re-reading Patrick Leigh Fermor's The Traveller's Tree, an account of the pre-mass-tourism Caribbean in the late 40s and it remains fascinating.
For what it's worth, I suspect that our GDP growth (and particularly our GDP per capita growth) would have been *slightly* higher had we stayed in the EU.
We wouldn't have had the Boriswave, and this would mean the denominator would have been slightly smaller. And we had been outgrowing France and Germany by about a percent a year, and that probably would have continued. (For what it's worth, we have outgrown them - in USD terms at least - but at a slower pace.)
Would this be enough to change my vote?
Not really; because my vote was primarily about democrartic accountability, rather than economics.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Of course we no longer pay into the EU budget. But a lot of that was to cover the costs of regulatory functions that we are now responsible for ourselves at greater cost. Hence the growth in the civil service after Brexit.
The entire staff of the European Commission is only about 30,000 so even if we replicated their entire operation, it would only account for a fraction of the increase in the headcount of the civil service, which in any case takes us back to below the level of the Blair years.
You'd expect populist right views to be correlated with ignorance and gullibility. What's depressing is that the political vehicles set up to feed these views and exploit those susceptible to them are having so much success. Worrying times.
I have just come from the pub, where a young student in a "Viva Hugo Chavez" hoodie was lecturing his table on socialism. Not sure naivety is exclusive to the right kind of populism.
I very carefully said 'correlated'. And the Pop Right is the brand of Pop in the ascendency with the public.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
However, it seems many will finally concede an economic cost, even if they pooh-pooh academic attempts to quantify it.
This is important though. Because an unwillingness to concede any cost prohibits a frank appraisal of how to move forward from here. Denialism has been a major block on British prosperity, as much as the actual economic deficiencies that are often rehearsed on here.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Culturally the UK is closer to New Zealand than Canada. Having a block with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in it along with the UK would cover Europe, North America and a gateway to Asia
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Of course we no longer pay into the EU budget. But a lot of that was to cover the costs of regulatory functions that we are now responsible for ourselves at greater cost. Hence the growth in the civil service after Brexit.
The entire staff of the European Commission is only about 30,000 so even if we replicated their entire operation, it would only account for a fraction of the increase in the headcount of the civil service, which in any case takes us back to below the level of the Blair years.
Although that chart does raise the question about what was cut between 2004 and 2015?
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
If you are referring to the discussion yesterday that was about @Benpointer’s selective use of statistics. You can’t prove a counter factual. Personally I suspect that the economic effect was minimal - the main result was that the government was tied up doing Brexit stuff.
Some may see the fact that government didn’t implement any clever initiatives as being a positive…
The best arguments for leaving the EU were (and are) non-economic. It should enhance democratic accountability by meaning the people we elect are the ones making the decisions.
Of course, this cuts both ways...
If the people we elect should be the ones making the decisions why did we have a referendum?
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Culturally the UK is closer to New Zealand than Canada. Having a block with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in it along with the UK would cover Europe, North America and a gateway to Asia
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Of course we no longer pay into the EU budget. But a lot of that was to cover the costs of regulatory functions that we are now responsible for ourselves at greater cost. Hence the growth in the civil service after Brexit.
The entire staff of the European Commission is only about 30,000 so even if we replicated their entire operation, it would only account for a fraction of the increase in the headcount of the civil service, which in any case takes us back to below the level of the Blair years.
Although that chart does raise the question about what was cut between 2004 and 2015?
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
You don't have to include the capers. My family loves salt, so I do.
However, it seems many will finally concede an economic cost, even if they pooh-pooh academic attempts to quantify it.
This is important though. Because an unwillingness to concede any cost prohibits a frank appraisal of how to move forward from here. Denialism has been a major block on British prosperity, as much as the actual economic deficiencies that are often rehearsed on here.
Personally I welcome any attempts by remainers to deploy relevant facts and figures to support their arguments, however fleeting and ultimately self-defeating such attempts always seem to be. It makes a nice change from 'cutting ourselves off from our biggest market' and other such trusty gems.
I see Badenoch has listed Brexit as one of the negative economic shocks experienced by the British economy in recent times.
That will come as a surprise to the “PB Tories” on here, who represent perhaps the final platoons of Brexity Hiroo Onodas, or Comical Alis.
No, it won’t. Of course it came at a near term cost (but also opened up a potential future upside with a capable government). It’s just that some people believe that’s all that matters (hence the tedious rendition of “Brexit is bad” related ad nauseum) and others believe that the political freedoms were worth the cost
Your compadres refuse to concede any cost. That’s the issue.
I’m glad you do.
I don't know which compadres you refer to, but I don't know any PB Brexit supporters who don't acknowledge a cost. Of course there was a cost. There was moderate to significant trade disruption with the EU, and British people lost some of their privileges in getting around the Continent easily.
By contrast, many, I would say a plurality of remoaners here cannot being themselves to acknowledge equally true benefits, not future aspirations, just basic prosaic facts like: 1. We no longer pay significant sums into the EU's coffers 2. We are no longer liable for additional EU debt
There are plenty more, but let's start with those two basic facts. When ScottP, Foxy, FF43, Cicero, Roger and *many* more, have the ability to acknowledge those simple facts without requiring medical assistance, come back to us for an informed debate. If anything, I'd say the less foamy contributors on the remain side here are in the minority.
Of course we no longer pay into the EU budget. But a lot of that was to cover the costs of regulatory functions that we are now responsible for ourselves at greater cost. Hence the growth in the civil service after Brexit.
The entire staff of the European Commission is only about 30,000 so even if we replicated their entire operation, it would only account for a fraction of the increase in the headcount of the civil service, which in any case takes us back to below the level of the Blair years.
Although that chart does raise the question about what was cut between 2004 and 2015?
On topic, one of the most depressing experiences of being an adult is coming (slowly) to the realisation that people decide what they believe first - and often adopt those beliefs from those they identify with or admire, however loosely - and then select, interpret or reject the evidence to suit to fit it. Not the other way round.
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
Well, the first step in 'how' is to realise that this is, if true, a fundamental part of you being a human. A second step might be to explore what David Hume makes of his insight that “Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions" (ie emotions).
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
This isn't just a food post...it's an M&S food post.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Somewhat similar - but I sometimes do the crushed potato thing with a little olive oil and/or butter - but put a few strands of saffron on the potatoes first so as the steam comes out and they dry, the saffron is 'sooked into the tatties'.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
For what it's worth, I suspect that our GDP growth (and particularly our GDP per capita growth) would have been *slightly* higher had we stayed in the EU.
We wouldn't have had the Boriswave, and this would mean the denominator would have been slightly smaller. And we had been outgrowing France and Germany by about a percent a year, and that probably would have continued. (For what it's worth, we have outgrown them - in USD terms at least - but at a slower pace.)
Would this be enough to change my vote?
Not really; because my vote was primarily about democrartic accountability, rather than economics.
I remember being open to persuasion on brexit. Waiting to hear some conclusive arguments about things the EU was holding us back on. When nothing realistic was presented apart from hand waving, I looked at the array of people who would be tasked with implementing it and thought to myself "I wouldn't trust you to run a small canteen in a provincial factory outlet".
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
Good to see that complete ignorance of vaccines and what they do is still out there.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
Which of the two have done more to promote democracy across Europe, though ? As you say, "no two democracies...".
My own view is that the two are (or perhaps now were, given Trump) complementary.
I'm not enough of a historian to know if Spain, Portugal, and so on were tilted toward democracy because of the lure of the EU - or the ex-Soviet nations. I'd have to leave that to others.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
You don't have to include the capers. My family loves salt, so I do.
I had capers for lunch, along with my smoked salmon and scrambled egg on sourdough toast
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
For what it's worth, I suspect that our GDP growth (and particularly our GDP per capita growth) would have been *slightly* higher had we stayed in the EU.
We wouldn't have had the Boriswave, and this would mean the denominator would have been slightly smaller. And we had been outgrowing France and Germany by about a percent a year, and that probably would have continued. (For what it's worth, we have outgrown them - in USD terms at least - but at a slower pace.)
Would this be enough to change my vote?
Not really; because my vote was primarily about democrartic accountability, rather than economics.
I remember being open to persuasion on brexit. Waiting to hear some conclusive arguments about things the EU was holding us back on. When nothing realistic was presented apart from hand waving, I looked at the array of people who would be tasked with implementing it and thought to myself "I wouldn't trust you to run a small canteen in a provincial factory outlet".
Though it turned out that they could run a piss-up in a government office.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
You don't have to include the capers. My family loves salt, so I do.
I had capers for lunch, along with my smoked salmon and scrambled egg on sourdough toast
Does this meet the definition of cooking?
Yes!
We eat our salmon and capers with panfried shallots and aubergines served with pasta.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
You don't have to include the capers. My family loves salt, so I do.
I had capers for lunch, along with my smoked salmon and scrambled egg on sourdough toast
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
Which of the two have done more to promote democracy across Europe, though ? As you say, "no two democracies...".
My own view is that the two are (or perhaps now were, given Trump) complementary.
I'm not enough of a historian to know if Spain, Portugal, and so on were tilted toward democracy because of the lure of the EU - or the ex-Soviet nations. I'd have to leave that to others.
Spain started sniffing around the EEC in the 1960s, but was politely (but firmly) told that it was nowhere near democratic enough. The accession negotiations started pretty sharpish once the old dictator was dead and buried. Spain's democratic transition was partly because only Franco could hold the old show together, and partly that Juan Carlos II got the biggest decision of his life right, even if he got a lot else wrong.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
The sugar activates the yeast. Most bread has it in.
In an era of AI slop, the essential BBC value proposition becomes even MORE valuable.
But it has suffered from a generation of mis-management and neglect.
I have a quite extensive back-catalogue of BBC radio drama's - and the drop in quality down the years has made me yearn for AI slop. At least you know that despite being dull and predictable it wasn't commissioned because it was a friend of the producer.
I really wish the BBC could look at itself honestly. But then I wish that about UK media and politics in general.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
The sugar activates the yeast. Most bread has it in.
The rolls used in Subway's hot sandwiches contain too much sugar to be considered bread, according to Ireland's Supreme Court.
Ireland's highest court made the ruling in a case about how the bread is taxed.
An Irish franchisee of the US company had claimed it should not pay VAT on the rolls it uses in heated sandwiches.
But the court ruled that because of the level of sugar in the rolls they cannot be taxed as bread, which is classed as a "staple product" with zero VAT.
Under Ireland's VAT Act of 1972, ingredients in bread such as sugar and fat should not exceed 2% of the weight of flour in the dough.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
It is perhaps, in light of the statistic in question, worth reflecting that from 1950 to 1991 there were comparatively few democracies in the world.
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
In an era of AI slop, the essential BBC value proposition becomes even MORE valuable.
But it has suffered from a generation of mis-management and neglect.
I have a quite extensive back-catalogue of BBC radio drama's - and the drop in quality down the years has made me yearn for AI slop. At least you know that despite being dull and predictable it wasn't commissioned because it was a friend of the producer.
I really wish the BBC could look at itself honestly. But then I wish that about UK media and politics in general.
Given the old BBC, it probably was produced because the writer had met the producer in the gents at the pub.
I suspect the problem now is that nothing is allowed to fail, so everything is blandified in advance. In which case, we might as well let AI do it.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
The sugar activates the yeast. Most bread has it in.
The rolls used in Subway's hot sandwiches contain too much sugar to be considered bread, according to Ireland's Supreme Court.
Ireland's highest court made the ruling in a case about how the bread is taxed.
An Irish franchisee of the US company had claimed it should not pay VAT on the rolls it uses in heated sandwiches.
But the court ruled that because of the level of sugar in the rolls they cannot be taxed as bread, which is classed as a "staple product" with zero VAT.
Under Ireland's VAT Act of 1972, ingredients in bread such as sugar and fat should not exceed 2% of the weight of flour in the dough.
Yes, similar in the UK, bread has had its sugar reduced over time, making our tastes adapt accordingly. It's why bread tastes sweet in the USA. Still needs sugar though.
In an era of AI slop, the essential BBC value proposition becomes even MORE valuable.
But it has suffered from a generation of mis-management and neglect.
I have a quite extensive back-catalogue of BBC radio drama's - and the drop in quality down the years has made me yearn for AI slop. At least you know that despite being dull and predictable it wasn't commissioned because it was a friend of the producer.
I really wish the BBC could look at itself honestly. But then I wish that about UK media and politics in general.
Given the old BBC, it probably was produced because the writer had met the producer in the gents at the pub.
I suspect the problem now is that nothing is allowed to fail, so everything is blandified in advance. In which case, we might as well let AI do it.
As I remember - Michael Grade gave the go-ahead for "The Singing Detective" while having a pee with the commissioning editor in the BBC loo's. Which I'm sure tickled Potter no end when he found out.
But broadly, yes. It would save a lot of time and money to just ask GPT "Can you write me a radio script about two middle class people who - daringly - stay in *South* London? The male character is a writer. The couple are having relationship problems and can't find cheap childcare."
Incidentally, I'm not sure that it's true Pakistan was always a dictatorship while at war with India. It was de facto at war from 1948 in Kashmir annd also Junagadh while the first coup was in 1958.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
The sugar activates the yeast. Most bread has it in.
The rolls used in Subway's hot sandwiches contain too much sugar to be considered bread, according to Ireland's Supreme Court.
Ireland's highest court made the ruling in a case about how the bread is taxed.
An Irish franchisee of the US company had claimed it should not pay VAT on the rolls it uses in heated sandwiches.
But the court ruled that because of the level of sugar in the rolls they cannot be taxed as bread, which is classed as a "staple product" with zero VAT.
Under Ireland's VAT Act of 1972, ingredients in bread such as sugar and fat should not exceed 2% of the weight of flour in the dough.
Yes, similar in the UK, bread has had its sugar reduced over time, making our tastes adapt accordingly. It's why bread tastes sweet in the USA. Still needs sugar though.
Ironically I believe that wholemeal breads tend to have more sugar, to overcome the bitterness of the flour.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
Good to see that complete ignorance of vaccines and what they do is still out there.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
80% beats 0%, every single time. Even 40% does.
I find it staggering how many people fail to understand that the world is full of slopes rather than steps.
The latest social media thing. Fishing around in one's No 2s and being convinced that perfectly ordinary roughage is, well, worms. Something with which any zoologist would instantly disagree. Easily. Because the idea is to post photos of the product on the web.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
Which of the two have done more to promote democracy across Europe, though ? As you say, "no two democracies...".
My own view is that the two are (or perhaps now were, given Trump) complementary.
I'm not enough of a historian to know if Spain, Portugal, and so on were tilted toward democracy because of the lure of the EU - or the ex-Soviet nations. I'd have to leave that to others.
I think that is - on balance - an argument in favour of the EU for some places.
I certainly think that had I been Estonian (in Estonia!), I would have voted for EU membership.
Incidentally, I'm not sure that it's true Pakistan was always a dictatorship while at war with India. It was de facto at war from 1948 in Kashmir annd also Junagadh while the first coup was in 1958.
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
Good to see that complete ignorance of vaccines and what they do is still out there.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
80% beats 0%, every single time. Even 40% does.
I find it staggering how many people fail to understand that the world is full of slopes rather than steps.
Er...I hope that was not said in a Nigel Farage sense...
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
You don't have to include the capers. My family loves salt, so I do.
I had capers for lunch, along with my smoked salmon and scrambled egg on sourdough toast
Does this meet the definition of cooking?
Yes!
We eat our salmon and capers with panfried shallots and aubergines served with pasta.
I picked up a jar of this to try the flavour combination out :
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
Good to see that complete ignorance of vaccines and what they do is still out there.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
80% beats 0%, every single time. Even 40% does.
I find it staggering how many people fail to understand that the world is full of slopes rather than steps.
Er...I hope that was not said in a Nigel Farage sense...
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
Good to see that complete ignorance of vaccines and what they do is still out there.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
80% beats 0%, every single time. Even 40% does.
I find it staggering how many people fail to understand that the world is full of slopes rather than steps.
Er...I hope that was not said in a Nigel Farage sense...
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
Good to see that complete ignorance of vaccines and what they do is still out there.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
80% beats 0%, every single time. Even 40% does.
I find it staggering how many people fail to understand that the world is full of slopes rather than steps.
Er...I hope that was not said in a Nigel Farage sense...
It's hard to keep up, is the covid lab leak theory a conspiracy again?
The only correct answer, bar from a handful of staff at the lab, is don't know. Both true and false will have been spun so many times by various intelligence agencies to a level at which even they don't know the answer, let alone us plebs.
COVID origins is different from the others because of the big gaps in knowledge. So if you are evidence led it is really an assessment of probabilities.
Personally I would say either Open Mind or Market are reasonable assessments on the evidence. Personally I would call it for Market because there is quite strong evidence for it, but this is not a situation where we must make decisions off the back of incomplete knowledge so we could decide to keep it completely open.
I think what the covid origins tale tells us is just how flagrantly we will be lied to for what others think are a good reason. Strip out the nuance and present confidently that which we barely know. Covid went a stage further and denounced those who had different views on the origins, wearing of masks, vaccines.
It's not a conspiracy to say that governments and scientists will bare face lie to us when it is convenient to do so.
Remember how crazy those who shouted the alarm at the rolling out of mrna vaccines, and the emergency use authorisation?
We have subsequently found the vaccine has had some dramatic and unexpected improvements in cancer survival periods. In this case we saw a positive and entirely unrelated side effect. But it could have just as easily been a catastrophic negative side effect.
Er.. nope
Because the vaccines were tested to detect *negative effects* just as every other vaccine is tested.
They compressed the schedule by doing stuff in parallel and not leaving gaps between steps. But they didn’t leave anything out.
They managed to miss out the component to stop transmission of the virus though..which is pretty much the point of a medication labelled a "vaccine"..💩
Good to see that complete ignorance of vaccines and what they do is still out there.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
80% beats 0%, every single time. Even 40% does.
I find it staggering how many people fail to understand that the world is full of slopes rather than steps.
Er...I hope that was not said in a Nigel Farage sense...
Nah, in an Isaac Newton sense.
So I mistook the gravity of the situation?
The apple's fallen far from the tree.
As puns go, that's good, almost a royal gala worthy performance.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
The sugar activates the yeast. Most bread has it in.
The rolls used in Subway's hot sandwiches contain too much sugar to be considered bread, according to Ireland's Supreme Court.
Ireland's highest court made the ruling in a case about how the bread is taxed.
An Irish franchisee of the US company had claimed it should not pay VAT on the rolls it uses in heated sandwiches.
But the court ruled that because of the level of sugar in the rolls they cannot be taxed as bread, which is classed as a "staple product" with zero VAT.
Under Ireland's VAT Act of 1972, ingredients in bread such as sugar and fat should not exceed 2% of the weight of flour in the dough.
Yes, similar in the UK, bread has had its sugar reduced over time, making our tastes adapt accordingly. It's why bread tastes sweet in the USA. Still needs sugar though.
From memory, you need a teaspoon of sugar in a large loaf. And modern instant yeast doesn't need it at all.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
The sugar activates the yeast. Most bread has it in.
The rolls used in Subway's hot sandwiches contain too much sugar to be considered bread, according to Ireland's Supreme Court.
Ireland's highest court made the ruling in a case about how the bread is taxed.
An Irish franchisee of the US company had claimed it should not pay VAT on the rolls it uses in heated sandwiches.
But the court ruled that because of the level of sugar in the rolls they cannot be taxed as bread, which is classed as a "staple product" with zero VAT.
Under Ireland's VAT Act of 1972, ingredients in bread such as sugar and fat should not exceed 2% of the weight of flour in the dough.
Yes, similar in the UK, bread has had its sugar reduced over time, making our tastes adapt accordingly. It's why bread tastes sweet in the USA. Still needs sugar though.
From memory, you need a teaspoon of sugar in a large loaf. And modern instant yeast doesn't need it at all.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
It is perhaps, in light of the statistic in question, worth reflecting that from 1950 to 1991 there were comparatively few democracies in the world.
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
Do Cambodia and Thailand count as democracies? They are at it at the moment.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
It is perhaps, in light of the statistic in question, worth reflecting that from 1950 to 1991 there were comparatively few democracies in the world.
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
Surely the IRA refused to recognise the "usurper" Republic established by Dev?
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
It is perhaps, in light of the statistic in question, worth reflecting that from 1950 to 1991 there were comparatively few democracies in the world.
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
Surely the IRA refused to recognise the "usurper" Republic established by Dev?
Didn't stop them getting most of their money from south of the border, even if not directly from the government.
Edit - also, on a point of pedantry the Republic was declared after de Valera had left office (although he established the office of President).
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Just finished cooking a loaf of bread, and ive got the salt sugar mix wrong, it turned out a bit of a mess, that if I put a picture of it on a billboard and paraded around my MP I would probably get arrested.
Out of interest why do you put sugar in your bread ?
The sugar activates the yeast. Most bread has it in.
The rolls used in Subway's hot sandwiches contain too much sugar to be considered bread, according to Ireland's Supreme Court.
Ireland's highest court made the ruling in a case about how the bread is taxed.
An Irish franchisee of the US company had claimed it should not pay VAT on the rolls it uses in heated sandwiches.
But the court ruled that because of the level of sugar in the rolls they cannot be taxed as bread, which is classed as a "staple product" with zero VAT.
Under Ireland's VAT Act of 1972, ingredients in bread such as sugar and fat should not exceed 2% of the weight of flour in the dough.
Yes, similar in the UK, bread has had its sugar reduced over time, making our tastes adapt accordingly. It's why bread tastes sweet in the USA. Still needs sugar though.
From memory, you need a teaspoon of sugar in a large loaf. And modern instant yeast doesn't need it at all.
In an era of AI slop, the essential BBC value proposition becomes even MORE valuable.
But it has suffered from a generation of mis-management and neglect.
I have a quite extensive back-catalogue of BBC radio drama's - and the drop in quality down the years has made me yearn for AI slop. At least you know that despite being dull and predictable it wasn't commissioned because it was a friend of the producer.
I really wish the BBC could look at itself honestly. But then I wish that about UK media and politics in general.
Given the old BBC, it probably was produced because the writer had met the producer in the gents at the pub.
I suspect the problem now is that nothing is allowed to fail, so everything is blandified in advance. In which case, we might as well let AI do it.
As I remember - Michael Grade gave the go-ahead for "The Singing Detective" while having a pee with the commissioning editor in the BBC loo's. Which I'm sure tickled Potter no end when he found out.
But broadly, yes. It would save a lot of time and money to just ask GPT "Can you write me a radio script about two middle class people who - daringly - stay in *South* London? The male character is a writer. The couple are having relationship problems and can't find cheap childcare."
That sounds ominously like Citizens. I don't think we want that back.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
It is perhaps, in light of the statistic in question, worth reflecting that from 1950 to 1991 there were comparatively few democracies in the world.
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
Famously, neither the official, provisional, or any of the offspring IRAs were an arm of the Republic of Ireland
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
You don't have to include the capers. My family loves salt, so I do.
I had capers for lunch, along with my smoked salmon and scrambled egg on sourdough toast
Does this meet the definition of cooking?
Yes!
We eat our salmon and capers with panfried shallots and aubergines served with pasta.
I picked up a jar of this to try the flavour combination out :
Works very well. So going to do a sort of lamb tagine 'thing' over christmas with a home-made version.
My big takeaway from a cookery course in Morocco was that as long as you use loads of Ras Al Hanout and fresh ginger and lemons, rind and fruit, you are fine. Pitted prunes as well. The mix of the sweet and tart and spice can’t go wrong.
On more important matters, have started watching a series called “Mammoth” on iPlayer about a 70s Welsh PE teacher who is frozen in an avalanche on a school trip, gets found and defrosted and trying to navigate through being back in modern life. Very promising so far.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
It is perhaps, in light of the statistic in question, worth reflecting that from 1950 to 1991 there were comparatively few democracies in the world.
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
Famously, neither the official, provisional, or any of the offspring IRAs were an arm of the Republic of Ireland
Indeed. Just as Witkoff famously has no links to Russia and OFGEM is strictly neutral and enforces its regulations on utility companies without fear or favour.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
You know when you were a child, and a sibling dared you to try eating a blade of grass? That's what capers taste like. Gross.
You don't have to include the capers. My family loves salt, so I do.
I had capers for lunch, along with my smoked salmon and scrambled egg on sourdough toast
Does this meet the definition of cooking?
Yes!
We eat our salmon and capers with panfried shallots and aubergines served with pasta.
I picked up a jar of this to try the flavour combination out :
Works very well. So going to do a sort of lamb tagine 'thing' over christmas with a home-made version.
My big takeaway from a cookery course in Morocco was that as long as you use loads of Ras Al Hanout and fresh ginger and lemons, rind and fruit, you are fine. Pitted prunes as well. The mix of the sweet and tart and spice can’t go wrong.
On more important matters, have started watching a series called “Mammoth” on iPlayer about a 70s Welsh PE teacher who is frozen in an avalanche on a school trip, gets found and defrosted and trying to navigate through being back in modern life. Very promising so far.
It's a PB documentary I thought. quite amusing but only 2 series of 3 episodes each
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Monnet, what an homme he was. In the midst of a war devastating the continent, with violence and hatred all around, he lifted his gaze and imagined another way, one founded on binding the nations of Europe together such that a repeat of the tragedy would become unthinkable. Then he busted a gut to realise it.
No two democracies have been at war since WW2, anywhere in the world. To a first approximation.
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
India and Pakistan? Though Pakistan might have been run by the military during the actual warfare.
India and Goa? Edit: if that can be called a war. (Just been reading Dalrymple's book Shattered Lands on the partitions of the Indian Raj, from Aden to Myanmar.)
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
Goa? Portugal was still run by dictator Salazar in 1961.
It is perhaps, in light of the statistic in question, worth reflecting that from 1950 to 1991 there were comparatively few democracies in the world.
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
Do Cambodia and Thailand count as democracies? They are at it at the moment.
Cambodia is a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional elective monarchy under a hereditary dictatorship", whereas Thailand is officially a "Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy".
Is there a reliable source for that, such as the BBC?
The BBC itself
Let me rephrase. Do you have a link to a reliable source, such as the BBC itself?
The Telegraph, even when it's not deliberately telling untruths, is quite capable of misunderstanding or misattributing from sheer incompetence these days, especially when it comes to spreading propaganda about its fellow Fascists.
Mm. Immigration as total number in UK (which is the everyday sensory reality) confused with immigration as the diffrerential of the former, net or otherwise?
I wonder if there is some confusion somewhere - much as those Tories used to claim how inflation had dropped, immediately after prices had increased by around 10% the previous year, and it didn't seem to work on the public.
Yes, I think that so.
The objection is not to the flow but rather to the presence of immigrants at all.
Hence all the discussion of mass deportation on the right.
We're back to the old favourite of facts, figures, perceptions and realities.
The experiences of people in their communities counts for far more than Government numbers and the widespread perception remains of an immigration system which is out of control and of preferential treatment being afforded (literally) to asylum seekers to the detriment of the indigenous population. Add to that the sense of cultural and economic identity being threatened and undermined by "outsiders" and you can see why the debate is where it is and talk of wholesale deportations of individuals and even social groups is in the mainstream.
This has worked to the advantage of individuals and groups whose view on migrants is somewhere between unfriendly and downright hostile but this view has been aided and abetted by the failure of successive Governments to be seen to be acting in what the indigenous population considers a "fair" manner. I think if you asked a lot of people whether migrants should be housed in 4-star hotels, old army camps or in tents in fields, the Canvas Party would likely win a majority.
Migrants are not housed in 4* hotels. They are housed in buildings that used to be 4* hotels, but at higher densities and without the same services, which is a totally different experience. But some media (traditional and social) deliberately misrepresent the situation to stir up hatred.
People’s experiences of immigration and the supposed preferential treatment given usually come more from such misrepresentation in the media rather than people’s own everyday experiences. People are bombarded by these, often false, nearly always skewed, narratives. That drives their perceptions. That even colours their experiences of immigration in real life: that brown person they see has become a threatening, suspicious figure lurking on the street, rather than just a brown person who’s waiting for a bus.
Some people, some of the time, will have direct, real world experiences of immigration: some good, some bad. Those experiences contribute too. But it is the torrent of Facebook posts and newspaper headlines that does more.
Is there a reliable source for that, such as the BBC?
Do you regard the Telegraph as an unreliable source of information?
A loaded question. It is an unreliable source of information both because of the very low quality of its remaining staff and its increasingly unhinged political stance. So how I 'regard' it is irrelevant.
Is there a reliable source for that, such as the BBC?
The BBC itself
Let me rephrase. Do you have a link to a reliable source, such as the BBC itself?
The Telegraph, even when it's not deliberately telling untruths, is quite capable of misunderstanding or misattributing from sheer incompetence these days, especially when it comes to spreading propaganda about its fellow Fascists.
Well .. you're right to be skeptical, it seems to be a rehash of the leaked Prescott review which was pored over last month.
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Culturally the UK is closer to New Zealand than Canada. Having a block with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in it along with the UK would cover Europe, North America and a gateway to Asia
Closest culturally to the UK in my opinion:
Ireland Australia NZ Norway Denmark Canada
Quota:
I'd certainly rate Great Britain and Germany as cultural neighbours, but the USA and Belgium??
Mm. Immigration as total number in UK (which is the everyday sensory reality) confused with immigration as the diffrerential of the former, net or otherwise?
I wonder if there is some confusion somewhere - much as those Tories used to claim how inflation had dropped, immediately after prices had increased by around 10% the previous year, and it didn't seem to work on the public.
If you look at the seperate numbers then emigration is on a slow steady rise and has been for many years. Immigration however has indeed dropped very rapidly over the last couple of years.
But isn’t that because the 1m number was always inflated by Hong Kong / Ukraine?
Yes. There were always rational reasons why the figure went so high: Ukraine, Hong Kong, a post-COVID adjustment in student numbers. There was also an increase in work visas, which was government policy, but the size of the “Boriswave” was driven by many things, most of which the public individually support.
However, when has there ever been a rational discussion of immigration?
FPT - I would favour imperial federation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Strangely, I can see a world where South Africa draws closer too, if we get the geopolitics right.
I went there recently and was struck by how much more British it was than I was expecting, despite not really being British at all.
Perhaps Durban and the Cape aren't representative but it didn't feel foreign.
As a NZer, I have no political opposition to this, although the word “imperial” kind of kills it at birth.
Rather, as I said last thread, adding Australia and NZ doesn’t follow geopolitical logic.
UK-C could be a very powerful player in the North Atlantic and Arctic fields, and ironically a more valuable partner for both the U.S. and EU thereby.
The trick is how to move practically toward a UK-C. Monnet had his coal and steel community - we need an analagous projet.
Culturally the UK is closer to New Zealand than Canada. Having a block with Canada, Australia and New Zealand in it along with the UK would cover Europe, North America and a gateway to Asia
Closest culturally to the UK in my opinion:
Ireland Australia NZ Norway Denmark Canada
Quota:
I'd certainly rate the Great Britain and Germany as cultural neighbours, but the US and Belgium??
Presumably the convexity of the shapes is evidence of the inadequacy of the metric.
On topic, one of the most depressing experiences of being an adult is coming (slowly) to the realisation that people decide what they believe first - and often adopt those beliefs from those they identify with or admire, however loosely - and then select, interpret or reject the evidence to suit to fit it. Not the other way round.
It happens in politics, sure, but it also happens in my professional line of work too, and in my family and in interpersonal relationships of friends.
I suppose we need to accept it as a fundamental part of being human and work with it accordingly. But I don't know how.
However, individually, we are all confident that we never do this ourselves.
On the subject of the BBC, Dimbleby Major isn’t pulling many punches in his documentary series What’s the Monarchy For? Far less emollient to Charles and his brood than his wee brother.
DD looking somewhat etiolated, and I’m a bit worried about that dark blemish on his lip.
My best mate today on the idea of masks making a comeback "they can get absolutely fucked" have to agree with him.
If the NHS can't handle a few extra sick people then maybe sack a few thousand managers and hire extra nurses and doctors.
Oh and the most common thing I hear from very senior clinical staff in NHS trusts about the "extra money" from the government is "if there's extra money then we're not seeing any of it" it's almost as if the corrupt managers are just giving their mates a bunch of non jobs and stealing the extra funds for themselves.
On the subject of the BBC, Dimbleby Major isn’t pulling many punches in his documentary series What’s the Monarchy For? Far less emollient to Charles and his brood than his wee brother.
DD looking somewhat etiolated, and I’m a bit worried about that dark blemish on his lip.
He’s going to be kicking himself if “The Kings Touch” is real.
Comments
We wouldn't have had the Boriswave, and this would mean the denominator would have been slightly smaller. And we had been outgrowing France and Germany by about a percent a year, and that probably would have continued. (For what it's worth, we have outgrown them - in USD terms at least - but at a slower pace.)
Would this be enough to change my vote?
Not really; because my vote was primarily about democrartic accountability, rather than economics.
Perhaps a betting opportunity but DYOR.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.251073973
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
The EU may have had some role in preventing war, but very secondary to NATO, democracy, and so on. Essentially stolen valour.
However, it seems many will finally concede an economic cost, even if they pooh-pooh academic attempts to quantify it.
This is important though.
Because an unwillingness to concede any cost prohibits a frank appraisal of how to move forward from here. Denialism has been a major block on British prosperity, as much as the actual economic deficiencies that are often rehearsed on here.
Tonight, I will boil some small potatoes untl they are soft. I will then transfer them to a large pyrex dish and use a potato masher to gently 'break' the skins of the potatoes so they become crushed rather than mashed. I will season with salt and pepper, before dousing it in olive oil, before chucking it into the oven.
While it's continuing to cook in the over (and get deliciously crispy), I will make a garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on the stove.
When the butter is done and the potatoes look appropriatelty delicious, I will put them on a serving dish, and pour the garlic-anchovy-capers-butter on top. Then I'll get some *really* good tuna and flake it over the top.
Any left over is great for breakfast the next day with an egg on top.
I will share a photo later.
(Note: this is not a good dish if you're dieting. It is (a) delicious, and (b) quite carb heavy.)
Ireland
Australia
NZ
Norway
Denmark
Canada
A singing drummer is a rarity.
My number one song on Spotify was Hotel California with a mere 853 plays. I honestly expected twice that.
As you say, "no two democracies...".
My own view is that the two are (or perhaps now were, given Trump) complementary.
No vaccine ever produced is 100% effective at preventing illness or preventing transmission. Nor has anyone claimed that one is, who has anything approaching a clue.
80% beats 0%, every single time. Even 40% does.
Does this meet the definition of cooking?
Unfortunately for them, as it turned out.
We eat our salmon and capers with panfried shallots and aubergines served with pasta.
There are also various Princely States but I don't know enough about them, or indeed Goa, to say whether they qualify.
(I like the former and loathe the latter.)
I really wish the BBC could look at itself honestly. But then I wish that about UK media and politics in general.
Ireland's highest court made the ruling in a case about how the bread is taxed.
An Irish franchisee of the US company had claimed it should not pay VAT on the rolls it uses in heated sandwiches.
But the court ruled that because of the level of sugar in the rolls they cannot be taxed as bread, which is classed as a "staple product" with zero VAT.
Under Ireland's VAT Act of 1972, ingredients in bread such as sugar and fat should not exceed 2% of the weight of flour in the dough.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54370056
Ironically one example I can think of where two democracies had at least a proxy war is in this very country - Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland.
I suspect the problem now is that nothing is allowed to fail, so everything is blandified in advance. In which case, we might as well let AI do it.
But broadly, yes. It would save a lot of time and money to just ask GPT "Can you write me a radio script about two middle class people who - daringly - stay in *South* London? The male character is a writer. The couple are having relationship problems and can't find cheap childcare."
https://youtu.be/8zNlFATvqMM?si=mslH64Tp1taIiUBK
The latest social media thing. Fishing around in one's No 2s and being convinced that perfectly ordinary roughage is, well, worms. Something with which any zoologist would instantly disagree. Easily. Because the idea is to post photos of the product on the web.
I certainly think that had I been Estonian (in Estonia!), I would have voted for EU membership.
https://www.souschef.co.uk/products/moulins-mahjoub-lemon-caper-harissa
Works very well. So going to do a sort of lamb tagine 'thing' over christmas with a home-made version.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yqvz9wljqo
Happy Days.
Edit - also, on a point of pedantry the Republic was declared after de Valera had left office (although he established the office of President).
"BBC admits falsely claiming Trump wanted to shoot critic"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/09/bbc-admits-falsely-claiming-trump-wanted-to-shoot-critic/
On more important matters, have started watching a series called “Mammoth” on iPlayer about a 70s Welsh PE teacher who is frozen in an avalanche on a school trip, gets found and defrosted and trying to navigate through being back in modern life. Very promising so far.
The Telegraph, even when it's not deliberately telling untruths, is quite capable of misunderstanding or misattributing from sheer incompetence these days, especially when it comes to spreading propaganda about its fellow Fascists.
People’s experiences of immigration and the supposed preferential treatment given usually come more from such misrepresentation in the media rather than people’s own everyday experiences. People are bombarded by these, often false, nearly always skewed, narratives. That drives their perceptions. That even colours their experiences of immigration in real life: that brown person they see has become a threatening, suspicious figure lurking on the street, rather than just a brown person who’s waiting for a bus.
Some people, some of the time, will have direct, real world experiences of immigration: some good, some bad. Those experiences contribute too. But it is the torrent of Facebook posts and newspaper headlines that does more.
FFS.
However, when has there ever been a rational discussion of immigration?
DD looking somewhat etiolated, and I’m a bit worried about that dark blemish on his lip.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec/09/starmer-urges-europe-leaders-update-echr-halt-rise-far-right
If the NHS can't handle a few extra sick people then maybe sack a few thousand managers and hire extra nurses and doctors.
Oh and the most common thing I hear from very senior clinical staff in NHS trusts about the "extra money" from the government is "if there's extra money then we're not seeing any of it" it's almost as if the corrupt managers are just giving their mates a bunch of non jobs and stealing the extra funds for themselves.