The hot rumour in the Russosphere this week is that Patrushev is the silovik who came in from the cold, has been rehabilitated to be the heir apparent should VVP falter. This would be very much a May to Johnson style evolution. Leaden bureaucrat replaced by a fucking nutcase.
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
Venezuela nationalised Gas in 1971 and oil in 1976.
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
So, I've been reading up on this and... no. Venezuela nationalised its oil in 1976, to the inconvenience of US companies. There were some significant expropriations of US oil companies' assets in 2007 as well. Trump, remember, is obsessed with stuff that happened in his youth; cf. his position on the 1977 deal whereby the US handed over the Panama Canal to Panama. Cf. also his dancing to "YMCA".
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
This makes me sad. It speaks very poorly of the Americans that they allow him to entertain this fantasy, and even worse that they will enable him when he decides to do so.
The hot rumour in the Russosphere this week is that Patrushev is the silovik who came in from the cold, has been rehabilitated to be the heir apparent should VVP falter. This would be very much a May to Johnson style evolution. Leaden bureaucrat replaced by a fucking nutcase.
I sense Putin’s ‘naughty’ moment may be a lot naughtier than running through a field of wheat.
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
I see there is no mention of the £570m per year cost in the question.
Instead it mentions 'without paying extra fees'.
According to the BBC there were 9,900 UK students who participated in Erasmus in its last year so if an equivalent number took part that would make it about £57k per student.
Compare with the Turing scheme which seems to be benefitting about 40k students for only £100m.
Once again the EU is exposed as a waste of money and this government yet again shows it couldn't get interest free credit at DFS.
I don't understand the logic of Erasmus.
40k people is considerably more than 9,900.
£100m is considerably less than £570 million.
If we have a half billion pounds lying about to spend on tertiary education, why not give it via Turing which was already helping four times more people at 1/6th of the cost?
There doesn't need to be any logic as it is the EU and so some people will wave their pompoms automatically.
It would be interesting to know if there is some financial limit at which they would consider it not worth it.
Voters support middle class kids dossing around for a year abroad. 👍
You, and the poll question, are not quite right. It's not just for university students - it includes apprentices and FE college vocational students, many/most of whom are not middle class. In 2018/19 10,000 Erasmus beneficiaries were university students, and 8,000 were from the latter groups. And you may not have noticed, but a lot of university students aren't middle class these days.
Personally, I'm pleasantly surprised by the polling on this.
The polling is worthless without any mention of the cost.
No one is interested in the cost. Big government figures are meaningless. Millions billions shmillions....if only we were all accountants we might give a shit
And that's why the national debt is almost £3bn and why the debt interest is now £2k per person per year.
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
This makes me sad. It speaks very poorly of the Americans that they allow him to entertain this fantasy, and even worse that they will enable him when he decides to do so.
US warns Europe against giving frozen Russian billions to Ukraine
As European leaders prepare to meet on Thursday, Washington is pressuring them to abandon plans to seize assets because they ‘are going to have to give it back’
America is probably right about the frozen assets though. I'm surprised the international law and global order enthusiasts are so cavalier about property rights.
It is probably best to invest the lot in TrumpCoin and give the profits to Ukraine, and eventually return the principal to Russia. What could go wrong?
Technically, and actually so in an important way, there is no change to ownership of these assets. Which is why Belgium is up in arms about it. A "loan" is made to Ukraine using these assets as backing. The loan is not required to be repaid until Russia provides reparations to that country. The assets are frozen until such time the reparations are resolved, which is quite likely to be indefinite. Russia doesn't pay reparations and the EU doesn't unfreeze the assets.
Belgium is concerned that the assets may be unfrozen before Ukraine sees any reparations.
Some of the banks holding assets have expressed concern that they may end up between two legal jurisdictions if the release the assets, rather than just freezing them.
As in understand it, Ukraine will collapse if it doesn't get billions of funding this year and next. Given that, EU members have three choices I think:
1. Let Ukraine collapse 2. Pony up billions on their own account 3. Raise money on Russian assets with a risk they may become liable later
(3) looks a slam dunk to me. The assets can only be unfrozen if an EU court requires it or where almost all members vote to release the assets and where those members are also voting to take on massive new liabilities they wouldn't otherwise have.
Seems the US is trying to undermine European attempts to fund Ukraine.
I see there is no mention of the £570m per year cost in the question.
Instead it mentions 'without paying extra fees'.
According to the BBC there were 9,900 UK students who participated in Erasmus in its last year so if an equivalent number took part that would make it about £57k per student.
Compare with the Turing scheme which seems to be benefitting about 40k students for only £100m.
Once again the EU is exposed as a waste of money and this government yet again shows it couldn't get interest free credit at DFS.
I don't understand the logic of Erasmus.
40k people is considerably more than 9,900.
£100m is considerably less than £570 million.
If we have a half billion pounds lying about to spend on tertiary education, why not give it via Turing which was already helping four times more people at 1/6th of the cost?
There doesn't need to be any logic as it is the EU and so some people will wave their pompoms automatically.
It would be interesting to know if there is some financial limit at which they would consider it not worth it.
£1bn ? £2bn ? £10bn ?
So now you have explained you don't understand how Erasmus works, why should we pay any further attention to your comments?
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
Britain could have joined Erasmus five years ago; an agreement on funding was completed between negotiators but vetoed “at the very last minute” by Boris Johnson. From Stefaan de Rynck’s book
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Really? What do you think is the Constitutional way past the 22nd Ammendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
At some point we need to meet fire with fire, like hacking Russian TV and showing footage on all channels of Putin getting rogered senseless by fantastically well endowed porn stars wearing Stalin facemasks.
Belgian politicians and finance bosses targeted by Russian intelligence over seized assets
Exclusive: Key figures at frozen assets depository among targets of intimidation campaign, say European intelligence agencies
Belgian politicians and senior finance executives have been subject to a campaign of intimidation orchestrated by Russian intelligence aimed at persuading the country to block the use of €185bn assets for Ukraine, according to European intelligence agencies.
Security officials indicated to the Guardian that there had been deliberate targeting of key figures at Euroclear, the securities depository holding the majority of Russia’s frozen assets, and leaders of the country.
EU leaders meeting in Brussels on Thursday are debating whether to approve the lending of urgently needed funds for Ukraine secured on Russian central bank assets, critical to maintain Kyiv’s war effort through 2026 and 2027.
Officials believe the campaign is the responsibility of Russia’s GRU military intelligence, though there is a debate about the degree of threat. “They have been engaged in the tactics of intimidation for sure,” one European official said.
At some point soon Starmer needs to tell the country that we are effectively at war. Get sensible and stop focussing on fripperies. We have become so removed from that mentality - I remember how the phone books as a child had guidance pages of what to do when a nuclear war starts - this isn’t about telling people to hide under a table and you will be fine when the bomb drops. It’s about a national mindset change where people stop thinking about being influencers and start looking outwards at a world where they might have to fight. If you like a ruck on a night out join up. The whole country needs to start thinking about getting their shit together. Start being serious.
“Starmer’s Vietnam” will go viral before he even finishes the speech.
Tell the country that we’re at war with Russia over the Ukraine and watch support for the Ukraine collapse. Give or buy them kit and quietly help the Poles get the bomb.
Ball.
A war is explaining why we are now going to fire back. Anyone who understands the current situation already knows that's what we now need to do. The Russians have been trespassing on the gain line for over a decade. Now they need to be reminded that they are no longer a superpower and that they have no right to launch attacks against the UK. How many more British citizens must die before we declare Putin's Russia is an enemy and subject to the full weapons at our disposal.
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Really? What do you think is the Constitutional way past the 22nd Ammendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
The Turing scheme was nowhere near as good for the students as Erasmus is . Bozo thought he could dupe the gullible by sticking the Turing name on it .
You keep posting this, but you never say why! Do you have a link to a comparison?
Like you have any further evidence for your ignorance?
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
Incidentally, it would be incredibly stupid to try and steal Venezuelan oil. So par for Trump.
Pre Chavez the domestic oil industry was (perhaps surprisingly) moderately well run. Sure, various elites stole money, but the actual operations were conducted on a fairly sensible basis.
Chevez changed that. He made a speech which puzzled the Economist, in which he condemned the managers of the industry for "reinvesting too much money". Then he fired them and put in his own guys.
Much of Venezuelan oil is thick, tar like stuff. Very hard to extract and refine. Some was of a much higher grade. The oil from these easy-exploit-wells was sold to pay for the very expensive extraction equipment for the harder to extract stuff.
Chavez demanded (and got) maximum production and maximum money out of the oil industry to buy votes and line the pockets of him and his supporters. This meant ending investment in extraction, largely. And using methods to "push" more oil, faster out of well damaged them. Combined with expropriations of foreign companies, this resulted in a collapse in the oil industry. Which staggers along at a tiny fraction of what it used to do.
To restart things would take many billions of investment. Which Venezuela can't get - no one will put money onshore there after multiple rounds of expropriation of foreign companies.
Even if you invest the money, you then have large amounts of expensive, heavy crude. True, some American refineries *used* to be setup for that stuff. But they've been converted to other work, long since. And few other refineries around the world take heavy stuff.
So going after Venezuelan oil would end up costing billions for a product that few want.
The Turing scheme was nowhere near as good for the students as Erasmus is . Bozo thought he could dupe the gullible by sticking the Turing name on it .
He should have called it the Erasmus Darwin scheme.
Voters support middle class kids dossing around for a year abroad. 👍
You, and the poll question, are not quite right. It's not just for university students - it includes apprentices and FE college vocational students, many/most of whom are not middle class. In 2018/19 10,000 Erasmus beneficiaries were university students, and 8,000 were from the latter groups. And you may not have noticed, but a lot of university students aren't middle class these days.
Personally, I'm pleasantly surprised by the polling on this.
The polling is worthless without any mention of the cost.
No one is interested in the cost. Big government figures are meaningless. Millions billions shmillions....if only we were all accountants we might give a shit
And that's why the national debt is almost £3bn and why the debt interest is now £2k per person per year.
Every time he posts you think could he be any denser but he just goes on doing it again and again.
Voters support middle class kids dossing around for a year abroad. 👍
You, and the poll question, are not quite right. It's not just for university students - it includes apprentices and FE college vocational students, many/most of whom are not middle class. In 2018/19 10,000 Erasmus beneficiaries were university students, and 8,000 were from the latter groups. And you may not have noticed, but a lot of university students aren't middle class these days.
Personally, I'm pleasantly surprised by the polling on this.
The polling is worthless without any mention of the cost.
No one is interested in the cost. Big government figures are meaningless. Millions billions shmillions....if only we were all accountants we might give a shit
And that's why the national debt is almost £3bn and why the debt interest is now £2k per person per year.
The national debt is, of course, almost £3tr.
Millions, billions, shmillions as Roger would say.
But real money when its being deducted from your pay.
I have no idea about the full economic pros and cons of schemes like Erasmus but I must say I've massively benefited from it. Get the kilt on, a couple of compliments and you're half way back to hers.
It's instructive that the Conservatives have opposed it. It's a signal that they have abandoned the uni educated middle class (my background). Consider the SNP - free uni tuition, cuts to rail travel - that's what a serious political operation looks like if you're targeting those votes.
I see there is no mention of the £570m per year cost in the question.
Instead it mentions 'without paying extra fees'.
According to the BBC there were 9,900 UK students who participated in Erasmus in its last year so if an equivalent number took part that would make it about £57k per student.
Compare with the Turing scheme which seems to be benefitting about 40k students for only £100m.
Once again the EU is exposed as a waste of money and this government yet again shows it couldn't get interest free credit at DFS.
I don't understand the logic of Erasmus.
40k people is considerably more than 9,900.
£100m is considerably less than £570 million.
If we have a half billion pounds lying about to spend on tertiary education, why not give it via Turing which was already helping four times more people at 1/6th of the cost?
There doesn't need to be any logic as it is the EU and so some people will wave their pompoms automatically.
It would be interesting to know if there is some financial limit at which they would consider it not worth it.
£1bn ? £2bn ? £10bn ?
So now you have explained you don't understand how Erasmus works, why should we pay any further attention to your comments?
Keep waving the pompoms.
And why not, after its not your money that will be funding gap years for some Henrys and Henriettas.
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
There aren't.
Can't remember who posted it, sorry! But the suggestion that SCOTUS will not intervene in his nomination and then say post his re-election that they won't overturn the clear decision of the US electorate seems entirely plausible.
Voters support middle class kids dossing around for a year abroad. 👍
You, and the poll question, are not quite right. It's not just for university students - it includes apprentices and FE college vocational students, many/most of whom are not middle class. In 2018/19 10,000 Erasmus beneficiaries were university students, and 8,000 were from the latter groups. And you may not have noticed, but a lot of university students aren't middle class these days.
Personally, I'm pleasantly surprised by the polling on this.
The polling is worthless without any mention of the cost.
No one is interested in the cost. Big government figures are meaningless. Millions billions shmillions....if only we were all accountants we might give a shit
And that's why the national debt is almost £3bn and why the debt interest is now £2k per person per year.
The national debt is, of course, almost £3tr.
Millions, billions, shmillions as Roger would say.
But real money when its being deducted from your pay.
To be fair if you deducted 3tr from my pay you’d end up with close to negative 3tr
The Turing scheme was nowhere near as good for the students as Erasmus is . Bozo thought he could dupe the gullible by sticking the Turing name on it .
You keep posting this, but you never say why! Do you have a link to a comparison?
It's difficult to compare Erasmus with Turing because they are completely different beasts. We can say that Turing is a lot more limited in what it offers than Erasmus. The key difference is that Erasmus is a student exchange programme that comes with funding, while Turing only provides travel bursaries and is not an exchange programme.
The big advantage of Erasmus to the institution is that it keeps the fees of the outgoing student.. While it effectively has to take incoming students for free, the marginal cost is minimal of an extra student in a course they are already running. For the same reason it doesn't matter too much if they take more students than they send.
Under Turing, institutions are "encouraged" to waive tuition fees while their students are abroad. But they have no incentive to do so and is actual loss of income for them. Which means students potentially have to pay additional tuition fees while they are abroad unless their institution has entered a bilateral arrangement with a partner abroad. This is a hassle for the institution and much more limited for the student compared with the market offered by Erasmus.
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
Constitutionally, maybe. But physically, medically??
He's not exactly in fine health right now, and he's still President.
He might be determined to die in office.
Seems unnecessary - previously he might have been worried about being mired in various legal issues post Presidency, but the Supreme Court resolved that for him.
Britain could have joined Erasmus five years ago; an agreement on funding was completed between negotiators but vetoed “at the very last minute” by Boris Johnson. From Stefaan de Rynck’s book
Wasn't Erasmus a prime example of both sides pretending, as I'm sure I recall us being told that 'cherry picking' was impossible?(despite this being the whole nature of negotiation, the issue actually being what either side was willing to give for specific things)
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
Incidentally, it would be incredibly stupid to try and steal Venezuelan oil. So par for Trump.
Pre Chavez the domestic oil industry was (perhaps surprisingly) moderately well run. Sure, various elites stole money, but the actual operations were conducted on a fairly sensible basis.
Chevez changed that. He made a speech which puzzled the Economist, in which he condemned the managers of the industry for "reinvesting too much money". Then he fired them and put in his own guys.
Much of Venezuelan oil is thick, tar like stuff. Very hard to extract and refine. Some was of a much higher grade. The oil from these easy-exploit-wells was sold to pay for the very expensive extraction equipment for the harder to extract stuff.
Chavez demanded (and got) maximum production and maximum money out of the oil industry to buy votes and line the pockets of him and his supporters. This meant ending investment in extraction, largely. And using methods to "push" more oil, faster out of well damaged them. Combined with expropriations of foreign companies, this resulted in a collapse in the oil industry. Which staggers along at a tiny fraction of what it used to do.
To restart things would take many billions of investment. Which Venezuela can't get - no one will put money onshore there after multiple rounds of expropriation of foreign companies.
Even if you invest the money, you then have large amounts of expensive, heavy crude. True, some American refineries *used* to be setup for that stuff. But they've been converted to other work, long since. And few other refineries around the world take heavy stuff.
So going after Venezuelan oil would end up costing billions for a product that few want.
I remember watching quite a good documentary about Chavez and the native oil industry. Can't find it now. But there was an awful lot of "the money was just resting in my account" going on.
Edit: Faintly possible it was this "This World: Revolution in Ruins - The Hugo Chávez Story". But I think it was a Storyville episode, in my hazy memory.
The Turing scheme was nowhere near as good for the students as Erasmus is . Bozo thought he could dupe the gullible by sticking the Turing name on it .
You keep posting this, but you never say why! Do you have a link to a comparison?
It's difficult to compare Erasmus with Turing because they are completely different beasts. We can say that Turing is a lot more limited in what it offers than Erasmus. The key difference is that Erasmus is a student exchange programme that comes with funding, while Turing only provides travel bursaries and is not an exchange programme.
The big advantage of Erasmus to the institution is that it keeps the fees of the outgoing student.. While it effectively has to take incoming students for free, the marginal cost is minimal of an extra student in a course they are already running. For the same reason it doesn't matter too much if they take more students than they send.
Under Turing, institutions are "encouraged" to waive tuition fees while their students are abroad. But they have no incentive to do so and is actual loss of income for them. Which means students potentially have to pay additional tuition fees while they are abroad unless their institution has entered a bilateral arrangement with a partner abroad. This is a hassle for the institution and much more limited for the student compared with the market offered by Erasmus.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Yes, but it involves a constitutional amendment passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and ratified by three-quarters of US States.
It'd be interesting (on paper) to see what a presidential executive order saying "there will be an election tomorrow and Donald Trump can stand as a candidate" would result in. Chaos, lawsuits, for sure. But then?
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Really? What do you think is the Constitutional way past the 22nd Ammendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
We've been through this a few times. The amendment doesn't forbid a two term President from being on the ballot. It doesn't make them ineligible from being sworn in as President. It forbids them from being elected. But it's the voters who do the electing, so how do you get a court order to prevent 80-something million people from voting to give Trump a third term, if they are so minded?
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
Incidentally, it would be incredibly stupid to try and steal Venezuelan oil. So par for Trump.
Pre Chavez the domestic oil industry was (perhaps surprisingly) moderately well run. Sure, various elites stole money, but the actual operations were conducted on a fairly sensible basis.
Chevez changed that. He made a speech which puzzled the Economist, in which he condemned the managers of the industry for "reinvesting too much money". Then he fired them and put in his own guys.
Much of Venezuelan oil is thick, tar like stuff. Very hard to extract and refine. Some was of a much higher grade. The oil from these easy-exploit-wells was sold to pay for the very expensive extraction equipment for the harder to extract stuff.
Chavez demanded (and got) maximum production and maximum money out of the oil industry to buy votes and line the pockets of him and his supporters. This meant ending investment in extraction, largely. And using methods to "push" more oil, faster out of well damaged them. Combined with expropriations of foreign companies, this resulted in a collapse in the oil industry. Which staggers along at a tiny fraction of what it used to do.
To restart things would take many billions of investment. Which Venezuela can't get - no one will put money onshore there after multiple rounds of expropriation of foreign companies.
Even if you invest the money, you then have large amounts of expensive, heavy crude. True, some American refineries *used* to be setup for that stuff. But they've been converted to other work, long since. And few other refineries around the world take heavy stuff.
So going after Venezuelan oil would end up costing billions for a product that few want.
A more serious problem is that when Chavez kicked out the foreign companies who had been successfully running the Venezelan oil industry he also said that any Venezuelan who had worked for ghost companies was barred from working in the oil industry. One reason why there is a massive Venezuelan diaspora in the oil ptofucing countries around the world.
They include some of my closest friends including one who was the world expert on heavy oil extraction using multiple parallel wellbores. They have made their lives outside of Venezuela and are unlikely to return.
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
The Turing scheme was nowhere near as good for the students as Erasmus is . Bozo thought he could dupe the gullible by sticking the Turing name on it .
You keep posting this, but you never say why! Do you have a link to a comparison?
It's difficult to compare Erasmus with Turing because they are completely different beasts. We can say that Turing is a lot more limited in what it offers than Erasmus. The key difference is that Erasmus is a student exchange programme that comes with funding, while Turing only provides travel bursaries and is not an exchange programme.
The big advantage of Erasmus to the institution is that it keeps the fees of the outgoing student.. While it effectively has to take incoming students for free, the marginal cost is minimal of an extra student in a course they are already running. For the same reason it doesn't matter too much if they take more students than they send.
Under Turing, institutions are "encouraged" to waive tuition fees while their students are abroad. But they have no incentive to do so and is actual loss of income for them. Which means students potentially have to pay additional tuition fees while they are abroad unless their institution has entered a bilateral arrangement with a partner abroad. This is a hassle for the institution and much more limited for the student compared with the market offered by Erasmus.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Really? What do you think is the Constitutional way past the 22nd Ammendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
We've been through this a few times. The amendment doesn't forbid a two term President from being on the ballot. It doesn't make them ineligible from being sworn in as President. It forbids them from being elected. But it's the voters who do the electing, so how do you get a court order to prevent 80-something million people from voting to give Trump a third term, if they are so minded?
The voters elect the members of the Electoral College not the president. Wouldn’t the constitution prevent *them* electing the president
The hot rumour in the Russosphere this week is that Patrushev is the silovik who came in from the cold, has been rehabilitated to be the heir apparent should VVP falter. This would be very much a May to Johnson style evolution. Leaden bureaucrat replaced by a fucking nutcase.
I sense Putin’s ‘naughty’ moment may be a lot naughtier than running through a field of wheat.
Surely it's not a field of oilseed rape? Completely mad if it is
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
We got rid of slums by replacing them with record construction levels that have never been matched since the atrocious town and country planning act was passed.
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Really? What do you think is the Constitutional way past the 22nd Ammendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
New amendment, revoke the 22nd? How was prohibition repealed, was it purely done via 21st amendment laid down?
The best chance of him not getting a 3rd term is being carried out in a box before Jan 2029
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Really? What do you think is the Constitutional way past the 22nd Ammendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
We've been through this a few times. The amendment doesn't forbid a two term President from being on the ballot. It doesn't make them ineligible from being sworn in as President. It forbids them from being elected. But it's the voters who do the electing, so how do you get a court order to prevent 80-something million people from voting to give Trump a third term, if they are so minded?
The voters elect the members of the Electoral College not the president. Wouldn’t the constitution prevent *them* electing the president
Maybe, yes. Which is even more reason why it doesn't stop Trump being on the ballot.
But by the point at which, hypothetically, Trump has won the election, so you really then expect the Electoral College to ignore those votes?
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
We got rid of slums by replacing them with record construction levels that have never been matched since the atrocious town and country planning act was passed.
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
Building large blocks of flats in back gardens doesn’t help
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
Incidentally, it would be incredibly stupid to try and steal Venezuelan oil. So par for Trump.
Pre Chavez the domestic oil industry was (perhaps surprisingly) moderately well run. Sure, various elites stole money, but the actual operations were conducted on a fairly sensible basis.
Chevez changed that. He made a speech which puzzled the Economist, in which he condemned the managers of the industry for "reinvesting too much money". Then he fired them and put in his own guys.
Much of Venezuelan oil is thick, tar like stuff. Very hard to extract and refine. Some was of a much higher grade. The oil from these easy-exploit-wells was sold to pay for the very expensive extraction equipment for the harder to extract stuff.
Chavez demanded (and got) maximum production and maximum money out of the oil industry to buy votes and line the pockets of him and his supporters. This meant ending investment in extraction, largely. And using methods to "push" more oil, faster out of well damaged them. Combined with expropriations of foreign companies, this resulted in a collapse in the oil industry. Which staggers along at a tiny fraction of what it used to do.
To restart things would take many billions of investment. Which Venezuela can't get - no one will put money onshore there after multiple rounds of expropriation of foreign companies.
Even if you invest the money, you then have large amounts of expensive, heavy crude. True, some American refineries *used* to be setup for that stuff. But they've been converted to other work, long since. And few other refineries around the world take heavy stuff.
So going after Venezuelan oil would end up costing billions for a product that few want.
I remember watching quite a good documentary about Chavez and the native oil industry. Can't find it now. But there was an awful lot of "the money was just resting in my account" going on.
Edit: Faintly possible it was this "This World: Revolution in Ruins - The Hugo Chávez Story". But I think it was a Storyville episode, in my hazy memory.
Pre Chavez, the oil industry *profits* were being stolen.
Chavez stole/spent the seed corn for the oil industry. And stole the profits.
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
We got rid of slums by replacing them with record construction levels that have never been matched since the atrocious town and country planning act was passed.
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
Building large blocks of flats in back gardens doesn’t help
Depends upon the size of the garden, if it fits then absolutely it helps. If it doesn't, then its moot.
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
We got rid of slums by replacing them with record construction levels that have never been matched since the atrocious town and country planning act was passed.
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
Building large blocks of flats in back gardens doesn’t help
Depends upon the size of the garden, if it fits then absolutely it helps. If it doesn't, then its moot.
If you must build blocks of flats, surely it would be better building them somewhere suitable along with the infrastructure required?
Densifying houses doesn't work if you can't densify the facilities.
There are constitutionally acceptable ways for Trump to run for a third term.
Really? What do you think is the Constitutional way past the 22nd Ammendment?
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
We've been through this a few times. The amendment doesn't forbid a two term President from being on the ballot. It doesn't make them ineligible from being sworn in as President. It forbids them from being elected. But it's the voters who do the electing, so how do you get a court order to prevent 80-something million people from voting to give Trump a third term, if they are so minded?
The voters elect the members of the Electoral College not the president. Wouldn’t the constitution prevent *them* electing the president
Maybe, yes. Which is even more reason why it doesn't stop Trump being on the ballot.
But by the point at which, hypothetically, Trump has won the election, so you really then expect the Electoral College to ignore those votes?
The individual states wouldn't allow Trump to be on the ballot paper because of the 22nd. They would ignore any executive order.
US is using the collapsed tech trade deal to revisit agriculture. Absence of a Washington ambassador since Mandelson resigned is not helping.
James Roscoe was serving as interim replacement within the hour after Mandelson "resigned". He is married to Clemency Burton-Hill. Her mother is a close family friend and I have met the family (including their two sons) when they holidayed close to us in Devon. James has had to cope with Clem's massive brain haemorrhage, from which she damn near died and has had to learn to speak again.
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
We got rid of slums by replacing them with record construction levels that have never been matched since the atrocious town and country planning act was passed.
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
Building large blocks of flats in back gardens doesn’t help
Depends upon the size of the garden, if it fits then absolutely it helps. If it doesn't, then its moot.
If you must build blocks of flats, surely it would be better building them somewhere suitable along with the infrastructure required?
Densifying houses doesn't work if you can't densify the facilities.
Agreed. But trying to explain it to @BartholomewRoberts is like hitting him over the head with a pink blancmange - futile and somewhat messy.
He doesn’t place any value on anything except his own obsession with concreting over England.
And it has a provision to withhold a chunk of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's travel budget if he does not provide Congress with unedited videos of military strikes on boats in the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
I can understand the rate of increase going down, but I'm surprised the population as a whole has dropped.
Not at all surprising. There are large flows in both directions, so if inflow is severely restricted then the total population drops. The drop in Canada is due to a large increase in non-permenant resident outflows.
In the longer term having a TFR below 2.1 ensures a falling population in the absence of immigration. Canadas TFR this year is 1.48. There is a lag on this as number of births is determined by the number of women aged between 15-40 as well as TFR.
In the absence of net immigration the tendency is for population ageing and decline. No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased it back over that figure.
Ithink that within a generation or so western countries will have to choose between population decline and all its associated socio-economic stresses and competing for immigrants. East Asia already is in that situation.
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
We got rid of slums by replacing them with record construction levels that have never been matched since the atrocious town and country planning act was passed.
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
No one is going to be building slums again, what a complete straw man. But we desperately need cheaper housing options and cheaper rentals, especially in big cities.
Trump on Venezuela: "Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had -- they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching. But they're not gonna do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out. And we want it back."
Wasn't Trump president for much of this time he's wittering on about?
Incidentally, it would be incredibly stupid to try and steal Venezuelan oil. So par for Trump.
Pre Chavez the domestic oil industry was (perhaps surprisingly) moderately well run. Sure, various elites stole money, but the actual operations were conducted on a fairly sensible basis.
Chevez changed that. He made a speech which puzzled the Economist, in which he condemned the managers of the industry for "reinvesting too much money". Then he fired them and put in his own guys.
Much of Venezuelan oil is thick, tar like stuff. Very hard to extract and refine. Some was of a much higher grade. The oil from these easy-exploit-wells was sold to pay for the very expensive extraction equipment for the harder to extract stuff.
Chavez demanded (and got) maximum production and maximum money out of the oil industry to buy votes and line the pockets of him and his supporters. This meant ending investment in extraction, largely. And using methods to "push" more oil, faster out of well damaged them. Combined with expropriations of foreign companies, this resulted in a collapse in the oil industry. Which staggers along at a tiny fraction of what it used to do.
To restart things would take many billions of investment. Which Venezuela can't get - no one will put money onshore there after multiple rounds of expropriation of foreign companies.
Even if you invest the money, you then have large amounts of expensive, heavy crude. True, some American refineries *used* to be setup for that stuff. But they've been converted to other work, long since. And few other refineries around the world take heavy stuff.
So going after Venezuelan oil would end up costing billions for a product that few want.
The Trump model, surely, would be from the 1930s, the 1950s or the 1960s, from the eras where his head exists. So think a partial or complete puppet state as in Batista's Cuba or or one of the South American countries dominated by US business interests.
Obviously with crime family Trump and his cronies creaming off their benefits.
On the refineries, I thought there were a series of heavy oil refineries in eg Montana set up to process Canadian crude, for which the supplies are under threat because of Trump's trade war, and for which the alternatives are mainly Venezuelan or Mexican but Mexico is aiming to refine domestically.
So his adventures in Venezuela are a potential new Empire, and also leverage against Canada.
Not quite my beat, but this is an analysis I have seen.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
I can understand the rate of increase going down, but I'm surprised the population as a whole has dropped.
Not at all surprising. There are large flows in both directions, so if inflow is severely restricted then the total population drops. The drop in Canada is due to a large increase in non-permenant resident outflows.
In the longer term having a TFR below 2.1 ensures a falling population in the absence of immigration. Canadas TFR this year is 1.48. There is a lag on this as number of births is determined by the number of women aged between 15-40 as well as TFR.
In the absence of net immigration the tendency is for population ageing and decline. No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased it back over that figure.
Ithink that within a generation or so western countries will have to choose between population decline and all its associated socio-economic stresses and competing for immigrants. East Asia already is in that situation.
When we look at British figures we see a latest figure of net immigration of 204 000, on a steep downward trend. This is still net immigration because of non-EU migrants, mostly for work and study. There is net emmigration of both UK nationals and of EU nationals. Notably the emmigrants are 99% of working age.
Without net immigration of 100 000 or so per year our population would also decline. I think that with the increasing restrictions on non-EU immigration that it is quite likely that we will flip to net emmigration before the next election. This hasn't happend since the 1980's. The effect would be to increase the dependency ratio.
Hmm. A third of domestic abuse (roughly, studies vary, a rare one from Canadian actually had a female majority) comes from women. But you wouldn't guess from a new scheme set up just to tackle misogyny in schoolboys: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qednjzwv1o
Women can be sexist and domestic abusers too. By singling out boys from such an early age all this is going to do is embed the feeling the system is out to get them and authority figures are taking a side, and it's not theirs.
"Nicola Mclafferty, 42, is a victim of domestic violence and said more needed to be done to teach children about abuse.
"Survivors of domestic abuse, men or women, should go into assemblies and speak to the children about it, tell them a bit of your lived experience, enough that it's not going to scare them but be quite factual. "
2. Permission for additional buildings on existing plots, so long as they take no more than twice the footprint of the original house. This will allow densification with mid-rise blocks of flats in back gardens . Here’s an example before and after from the Croydon design guide:
We had exactly this debate with @BartholomewRoberts a while ago when he was arguing that this should be allowed.
Why should it not be allowed?
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
Because your mindset is the equivalent of suborning stakeholder interests to shareholder interests.
Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
We got rid of slums by replacing them with record construction levels that have never been matched since the atrocious town and country planning act was passed.
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
Building large blocks of flats in back gardens doesn’t help
Depends upon the size of the garden, if it fits then absolutely it helps. If it doesn't, then its moot.
If you must build blocks of flats, surely it would be better building them somewhere suitable along with the infrastructure required?
Densifying houses doesn't work if you can't densify the facilities.
And where are these mythical places with suitable facilities? Since you don't seem to think towns and cities have the facilities required?
We have a chronic housing shortage. We are desperate for millions of extra homes, and you are objecting to people constructing homes in towns and cities where they are needed.
If we need more facilities, then construct them too, but that's not a reason to stand in the way of ensuring that our desperately chronic housing shortage is tackled, is it?
The grim irony of Ollie Pope is that he’s there because of his record in county cricket.
Meanwhile, Crawley is backed despite a poor first class record and a terrible test record because county cricket is worthless and runs don’t reflect his real value to the team.
This tour has to be the end for Pope, Crawley, Key and McCullum.
If Stokes survives as captain it can only be for the want of obvious alternatives.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
I can understand the rate of increase going down, but I'm surprised the population as a whole has dropped.
Not at all surprising. There are large flows in both directions, so if inflow is severely restricted then the total population drops. The drop in Canada is due to a large increase in non-permenant resident outflows.
In the longer term having a TFR below 2.1 ensures a falling population in the absence of immigration. Canadas TFR this year is 1.48. There is a lag on this as number of births is determined by the number of women aged between 15-40 as well as TFR.
In the absence of net immigration the tendency is for population ageing and decline. No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased it back over that figure.
Ithink that within a generation or so western countries will have to choose between population decline and all its associated socio-economic stresses and competing for immigrants. East Asia already is in that situation.
When we look at British figures we see a latest figure of net immigration of 204 000, on a steep downward trend. This is still net immigration because of non-EU migrants, mostly for work and study. There is net emmigration of both UK nationals and of EU nationals. Notably the emmigrants are 99% of working age.
Without net immigration of 100 000 or so per year our population would also decline. I think that with the increasing restrictions on non-EU immigration that it is quite likely that we will flip to net emmigration before the next election. This hasn't happend since the 1980's. The effect would be to increase the dependency ratio.
I would rather solve our housing shortage via construction than population decline, but if our population were to fall by about ten million that would help solve our housing shortage.
That would be a silver lining to a very dark cloud though.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
I can understand the rate of increase going down, but I'm surprised the population as a whole has dropped.
Not at all surprising. There are large flows in both directions, so if inflow is severely restricted then the total population drops. The drop in Canada is due to a large increase in non-permenant resident outflows.
In the longer term having a TFR below 2.1 ensures a falling population in the absence of immigration. Canadas TFR this year is 1.48. There is a lag on this as number of births is determined by the number of women aged between 15-40 as well as TFR.
In the absence of net immigration the tendency is for population ageing and decline. No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased it back over that figure.
Ithink that within a generation or so western countries will have to choose between population decline and all its associated socio-economic stresses and competing for immigrants. East Asia already is in that situation.
When we look at British figures we see a latest figure of net immigration of 204 000, on a steep downward trend. This is still net immigration because of non-EU migrants, mostly for work and study. There is net emmigration of both UK nationals and of EU nationals. Notably the emmigrants are 99% of working age.
Without net immigration of 100 000 or so per year our population would also decline. I think that with the increasing restrictions on non-EU immigration that it is quite likely that we will flip to net emmigration before the next election. This hasn't happend since the 1980's. The effect would be to increase the dependency ratio.
I would rather solve our housing shortage via construction than population decline, but if our population were to fall by about ten million that would help solve our housing shortage.
That would be a silver lining to a very dark cloud though.
I dont think that the population will fall quite that far. With no net immigration the population of England would drop by 3 million or so in the next 25 years. Of course it is possible that net emmigration it could drop faster.
The problem would be socio-demographic. An increasing tax burden on workers to pay the pensions and welfare of retirees, schools closing due to low enrollments, skill shortages in areas including health care and construction etc.
In the short term there would be a reallocation of workers domestically, with sectors like hospitality and social care becoming more expensive as they pay staff more. Good for the workers in those sectors, bad for consumers in thosr sectors. In the longer run we would just become an older greyer less dynamic society.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
I can understand the rate of increase going down, but I'm surprised the population as a whole has dropped.
Not at all surprising. There are large flows in both directions, so if inflow is severely restricted then the total population drops. The drop in Canada is due to a large increase in non-permenant resident outflows.
In the longer term having a TFR below 2.1 ensures a falling population in the absence of immigration. Canadas TFR this year is 1.48. There is a lag on this as number of births is determined by the number of women aged between 15-40 as well as TFR.
In the absence of net immigration the tendency is for population ageing and decline. No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased it back over that figure.
Ithink that within a generation or so western countries will have to choose between population decline and all its associated socio-economic stresses and competing for immigrants. East Asia already is in that situation.
When we look at British figures we see a latest figure of net immigration of 204 000, on a steep downward trend. This is still net immigration because of non-EU migrants, mostly for work and study. There is net emmigration of both UK nationals and of EU nationals. Notably the emmigrants are 99% of working age.
Without net immigration of 100 000 or so per year our population would also decline. I think that with the increasing restrictions on non-EU immigration that it is quite likely that we will flip to net emmigration before the next election. This hasn't happend since the 1980's. The effect would be to increase the dependency ratio.
I would rather solve our housing shortage via construction than population decline, but if our population were to fall by about ten million that would help solve our housing shortage.
That would be a silver lining to a very dark cloud though.
I dont think that the population will fall quite that far. With no net immigration the population of England would drop by 3 million or so in the next 25 years. Of course it is possible that net emmigration it could drop faster.
The problem would be socio-demographic. An increasing tax burden on workers to pay the pensions and welfare of retirees, schools closing due to low enrollments, skill shortages in areas including health care and construction etc.
In the short term there would be a reallocation of workers domestically, with sectors like hospitality and social care becoming more expensive as they pay staff more. Good for the workers in those sectors, bad for consumers in thosr sectors. In the longer run we would just become an older greyer less dynamic society.
I'm not sure increasing pay for social care is nailed on. Declining standards seems also plausible. Less staff per care home, lower service provision in practice etc.
The way her origin changed depending on the science of the day is fascinating. Skull morphology suggested African, then DNA said Cypriot (and DNA is the gold standard, right?) but now newer DNA techniques suggest she is English.
EXCLUSIVE: The Trump administration is asking U.S. oil companies if they’re interested in returning to Venezuela once Maduro is toppled, per sources familiar with the discussions.
The way her origin changed depending on the science of the day is fascinating. Skull morphology suggested African, then DNA said Cypriot (and DNA is the gold standard, right?) but now newer DNA techniques suggest she is English.
Comments
SCOOP: Trump privately spoke with his former impeachment attorney Alan Dershowitz about potentially being president for a THIRD term.
Dershowitz presented Trump a draft of his upcoming book called "Could President Trump Constitutionally Serve a Third Term?" They discussed Dershowitz's conclusion on a potential Trump third term.
https://x.com/schwartzbWSJ/status/2001411762118176946?s=20
Venezuela’s government has ordered its Navy to escort ships carrying oil out of port following Trump's blockade announcement.
This has the potential to go very badly.
Oh, but it's Sarah Palin this time, rather than Trump.
He might be determined to die in office.
More recently, 2007:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/may/02/oilandpetrol.venezuela
It would be interesting to know if there is some financial limit at which they would consider it not worth it.
£1bn ? £2bn ? £10bn ?
Britain could have joined Erasmus five years ago; an agreement on funding was completed between negotiators but vetoed “at the very last minute” by Boris Johnson. From Stefaan de Rynck’s book
https://bsky.app/profile/matthewholehouse.bsky.social/post/3ma6cz2sqec2i
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."
A war is explaining why we are now going to fire back. Anyone who understands the current situation already knows that's what we now need to do. The Russians have been trespassing on the gain line for over a decade. Now they need to be reminded that they are no longer a superpower and that they have no right to launch attacks against the UK. How many more British citizens must die before we declare Putin's Russia is an enemy and subject to the full weapons at our disposal.
Pre Chavez the domestic oil industry was (perhaps surprisingly) moderately well run. Sure, various elites stole money, but the actual operations were conducted on a fairly sensible basis.
Chevez changed that. He made a speech which puzzled the Economist, in which he condemned the managers of the industry for "reinvesting too much money". Then he fired them and put in his own guys.
Much of Venezuelan oil is thick, tar like stuff. Very hard to extract and refine. Some was of a much higher grade. The oil from these easy-exploit-wells was sold to pay for the very expensive extraction equipment for the harder to extract stuff.
Chavez demanded (and got) maximum production and maximum money out of the oil industry to buy votes and line the pockets of him and his supporters. This meant ending investment in extraction, largely. And using methods to "push" more oil, faster out of well damaged them. Combined with expropriations of foreign companies, this resulted in a collapse in the oil industry. Which staggers along at a tiny fraction of what it used to do.
To restart things would take many billions of investment. Which Venezuela can't get - no one will put money onshore there after multiple rounds of expropriation of foreign companies.
Even if you invest the money, you then have large amounts of expensive, heavy crude. True, some American refineries *used* to be setup for that stuff. But they've been converted to other work, long since. And few other refineries around the world take heavy stuff.
So going after Venezuelan oil would end up costing billions for a product that few want.
Millions, billions, shmillions as Roger would say.
But real money when its being deducted from your pay.
It's instructive that the Conservatives have opposed it. It's a signal that they have abandoned the uni educated middle class (my background). Consider the SNP - free uni tuition, cuts to rail travel - that's what a serious political operation looks like if you're targeting those votes.
And why not, after its not your money that will be funding gap years for some Henrys and Henriettas.
If people want to build up on their own land, good for them! We need more housing, and there's nothing wrong with building up, it is a productive use of land.
But the suggestion that SCOTUS will not intervene in his nomination and then say post his re-election that they won't overturn the clear decision of the US electorate seems entirely plausible.
https://apple.news/ALRxrPyA2QKOIG9YbaVWVgQ
The big advantage of Erasmus to the institution is that it keeps the fees of the outgoing student.. While it effectively has to take incoming students for free, the marginal cost is minimal of an extra student in a course they are already running. For the same reason it doesn't matter too much if they take more students than they send.
Under Turing, institutions are "encouraged" to waive tuition fees while their students are abroad. But they have no incentive to do so and is actual loss of income for them. Which means students potentially have to pay additional tuition fees while they are abroad unless their institution has entered a bilateral arrangement with a partner abroad. This is a hassle for the institution and much more limited for the student compared with the market offered by Erasmus.
Good review of the two programmes here
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9141/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2078025
Edit: Faintly possible it was this "This World: Revolution in Ruins - The Hugo Chávez Story". But I think it was a Storyville episode, in my hazy memory.
Canada's population dropped by 76,068 between July and October - a contraction driven mainly by limits on immigration, the federal statistics agency has said.
The decrease was due mainly to a drop in non-permanent residents, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday, and comes after Ottawa set a goal to restrict temporary residents to 5% of the 41.6 million population by 2027.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g6595619yo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/cwyr3x9vg7qt#Scorecard
They include some of my closest friends including one who was the world expert on heavy oil extraction using multiple parallel wellbores. They have made their lives outside of Venezuela and are unlikely to return.
already.Ownership is important but so is the community. We got rid of slums for a reason
Hence it absolutely matters if they take more students than they send?
(For context: sitting on a plane at O’Hare waiting to fly to Toronto where it is currently below zero 🥶)
We should do again what was done then. We need construction of a level not seen since we got rid of the slums.
The best chance of him not getting a 3rd term is being carried out in a box before Jan 2029
But by the point at which, hypothetically, Trump has won the election, so you really then expect the Electoral College to ignore those votes?
Chavez stole/spent the seed corn for the oil industry. And stole the profits.
Densifying houses doesn't work if you can't densify the facilities.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/17/trump-demands-british-supermarkets-chlorinated-chicken/ (£££)
US is using the collapsed tech trade deal to revisit agriculture. Absence of a Washington ambassador since Mandelson resigned is not helping.
DNA advances show Roman-era skeleton, once hailed as first black Briton, came from southern England
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/17/beachy-head-woman-may-be-local-girl-from-eastbourne-say-scientists
He doesn’t place any value on anything except his own obsession with concreting over England.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710004001
In the longer term having a TFR below 2.1 ensures a falling population in the absence of immigration. Canadas TFR this year is 1.48. There is a lag on this as number of births is determined by the number of women aged between 15-40 as well as TFR.
In the absence of net immigration the tendency is for population ageing and decline. No country in history where the TFR falls below 2.1 has ever increased it back over that figure.
Ithink that within a generation or so western countries will have to choose between population decline and all its associated socio-economic stresses and competing for immigrants. East Asia already is in that situation.
Obviously with crime family Trump and his cronies creaming off their benefits.
On the refineries, I thought there were a series of heavy oil refineries in eg Montana set up to process Canadian crude, for which the supplies are under threat because of Trump's trade war, and for which the alternatives are mainly Venezuelan or Mexican but Mexico is aiming to refine domestically.
So his adventures in Venezuela are a potential new Empire, and also leverage against Canada.
Not quite my beat, but this is an analysis I have seen.
Without net immigration of 100 000 or so per year our population would also decline. I think that with the increasing restrictions on non-EU immigration that it is quite likely that we will flip to net emmigration before the next election. This hasn't happend since the 1980's. The effect would be to increase the dependency ratio.
Hmm. A third of domestic abuse (roughly, studies vary, a rare one from Canadian actually had a female majority) comes from women. But you wouldn't guess from a new scheme set up just to tackle misogyny in schoolboys:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qednjzwv1o
Women can be sexist and domestic abusers too. By singling out boys from such an early age all this is going to do is embed the feeling the system is out to get them and authority figures are taking a side, and it's not theirs.
"Nicola Mclafferty, 42, is a victim of domestic violence and said more needed to be done to teach children about abuse.
"Survivors of domestic abuse, men or women, should go into assemblies and speak to the children about it, tell them a bit of your lived experience, enough that it's not going to scare them but be quite factual. "
Amazing achievement by the lads.
We have a chronic housing shortage. We are desperate for millions of extra homes, and you are objecting to people constructing homes in towns and cities where they are needed.
If we need more facilities, then construct them too, but that's not a reason to stand in the way of ensuring that our desperately chronic housing shortage is tackled, is it?
Meanwhile, Crawley is backed despite a poor first class record and a terrible test record because county cricket is worthless and runs don’t reflect his real value to the team.
This tour has to be the end for Pope, Crawley, Key and McCullum.
If Stokes survives as captain it can only be for the want of obvious alternatives.
That would be a silver lining to a very dark cloud though.
Discuss with regard to the ongoing Mangione trial.
Are they really incompetent or just tacitly supportive of him so the process is flawed ?
I was also thinking of searching a bag without a warrant and that perp walk.
The problem would be socio-demographic. An increasing tax burden on workers to pay the pensions and welfare of retirees, schools closing due to low enrollments, skill shortages in areas including health care and construction etc.
In the short term there would be a reallocation of workers domestically, with sectors like hospitality and social care becoming more expensive as they pay staff more. Good for the workers in those sectors, bad for consumers in thosr sectors. In the longer run we would just become an older greyer less dynamic society.
EXCLUSIVE: The Trump administration is asking U.S. oil companies if they’re interested in returning to Venezuela once Maduro is toppled, per sources familiar with the discussions.
So far, the answer is a hard “no.”
https://bsky.app/profile/politico.com/post/3ma7miulufk2i